WORLDVIEW: The answer to the covid recession

PRESIDENT Biden needs to explain Keynes to a wider audience

942Views 4Comments Posted 02/11/2021

By Jonathan Power

One of the most peculiar aspects of the current debate in the US Congress on the big expenditure bills, and last month’s budget presentation before the British parliament, as the country struggles from the economic fallout from Brexit and the Pandemic, is that rarely has there been mention of the name John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes, without doubt, was the greatest economist of the last century. What Keynes taught was counterintuitive- that in a time of an economic downturn the answer was to prime the pump. Spend more. (The opposite of what a family should do when in debt.) That would revive the economy and increase the growth rate. The increased growth would provide more tax revenue which could be spent on aid for the poor, new infrastructure and the health services, etc. As an economy grows the deficits many politicians say they worry about (although the Republicans only do when they are out of power) would become relatively smaller. In short, the debt would remain a constant figure while the size of the economy as a whole would increase.

In other words, the total debt possessed by a country, relative to a country’s growing total income, would lessen. The percentage of debt would go down. Indeed, with interest rates as low as they are these days, it costs a government very little to borrow. As some economists have said it’s almost “free money”. Keynesian economics, intellectually derided by the Chicago school, in particular by the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, and politically rubbished by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, needs a comeback.

Biden a believer
President Joseph Biden obviously believes in it, judging by his actions, but he needs to publicly credit and explain Keynes to a wide audience. Keynes’s principles of finance and economics are not hard to understand. Then it will be easier to carry doubters along. Even more so with Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The new UK budget seems orientated the Keynesian way, but he could go much further, not least in lowering taxes. In Germany, Keynes has long been relegated to a footnote in the economic debate. Until very recently, Chancellor Angela Merkel has believed in balancing the books.

 The result has been a brake on both German and European growth and, in the case of Greece, an imposed austerity leading to a contraction that ruined the lives of millions of Greeks. Somewhat of a surprise, earlier this year, Merkel changed course under the pressure of the deflationary Pandemic which has pulled every country down, and agreed to the European Union setting up a massive fund of 540 billion euros to help the poorer European nations recover. Very Keynesian.

Anti-Keynesianism persists, not only in the current American Congressional debate. One saw it in the Conservative governments in Britain of David Cameron and Theresa May which implanted many savage cuts that hurt the poor most. Over many years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) insisted on monetary belt-tightening in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, and much of Africa and Latin America.

The result were cuts in social security and a rise in poverty. (And the IMF has shied away from criticizing military expenditures, thus allowing governments to focus their cost-cutting on social expenditures whose greatest impact is as always to hurt the less fortunate.)

These, important errors though they be, are perhaps lesser flaws compared with the refusal to open the door to a wider implementation of Keynesian teaching on the need for greater liquidity resources for the IMF.

If the IMF had had the resources Keynes envisioned, (called by economists “liquidity”), argued the late Mahbub ul Haq, the former finance minister of Pakistan and a constant campaigner for resuscitating Keynes' intellectual legacy "then the Asian crisis would have been avoided". He was referring to the great Asian crisis of 1997, which raised fears of a worldwide economic meltdown due to financial contagion.

Just before the end of the Second World War, the Western powers decided to rethink the international financial system. Meeting in July 1944 at Bretton Woods their top experts, including Keynes, representing the British government, discussed a new world order, convinced that the global system could not be left to the mercy of unilateral action by governments or to the unregulated workings of the international markets.

Thus emerged the IMF and the World Bank. It was both a great achievement and a great disappointment. Over the last eight decades, both institutions have been invaluable, but this success only begs the question of what they might have done if Keynes's original vision had not been cut down to size.

Keynes proposed an IMF whose resources would be equal to one-half of world imports. In practice the IMF today controls liquidity equal to only a very small proportion of world imports. It can impose only a modicum of the financial discipline necessary in an age when the size of speculative private capital movements crossing international borders is mind-blowing.

 Keynes saw the IMF evolving into a world central bank, able to issue its own reserve currency, sufficient to meet the needs for expansion whenever and wherever needed. The IMF can issue so-called Special Drawing Rights, a minor but important step towards achieving this- they amount to a very small percentage of world liquidity. These SDRs can be exchanged for other currencies that in turn can be used to buy goods and services such as vaccines, medical equipment, and food.

In the mid-1990s, the IMF's managing director, Michel Camdessus, campaigned hard for a modest increase in these and also for an increase in quotas to strengthen the IMF's capital base, but the US, the UK, and Germany rebuffed him.

In recent years because of the financial crisis of a decade ago and the current Pandemic, even some conservatives have come round to using SDRs- but with the proviso that the rich countries get them as well as the poorer nations. In fact, they do get the most, automatically- how much depending on the size of their IMF quota. SDRs were issued earlier this year, a total, equivalent to 650 billion US dollars.

Keynes regarded balance of payments surpluses as a vice and deficits as a virtue. It is deficits that sustain demand and generate increased employment. He went so far as to argue that outstanding trade surpluses should be penalized by an interest rate of 1% a month. Thus, in Keynes's vision, there would be no persistent debt problems as surpluses would be used by the IMF to finance deficits.

Gamblers’ paradise
Keynes would have had no time for the present gamblers’ paradise- private investors' speedy entry into and exit from financial markets in search of quick gains. This has not only helped precipitate a crisis every decade or so, but it has also seriously undermined longer-term investment. In an age when the combined reserves of all central banks amount to one day's worth of foreign exchange trading, the ability of individual countries and the IMF to stop a quite irrational hemorrhaging of the proportions we have just witnessed is totally undermined.

Besides more available public liquidity we are in urgent need of some sort of braking system when the private liquidity system spins too fast. Hence the renewed interest in academic circles of the proposal of the economics Nobel prize winner- and fan of Keynes- James Tobin of Yale University, for a tax of 0.5% on international currency transactions. This would curb excessive speculation while yielding around $1.5 trillion a year for health and educational development.

So, who among the current policymakers will dare resurrect the name of John Maynard Keynes and preach his word? "Ring out the false, ring in the true"!


Comments 4


John Maynard Keynes, and his disciple, Jonathan Power (as evidenced by the latter’s attitude of worship at the alter of anyone who arrogantly assumes the role of “intellectual elite”), elevate themselves to being “on the side of angels”, taking no blame for their errors in judgment. It is glory to those who can sit on their pedestal, and when their theories are proven wrong, they know they will bear no consequence or cost, they are immune in a way that no others in society are protected. As Thomas Sowell notes of false prophets: [they]”seem likely to end up ‘with just as much honour as if they had been truly prophetic.’ It is as if by taking up issues such as climate change, famine or safety on behalf of your fellow man you don the mantle of a “secular saint” and while you might be wrong, dreadfully wrong, you are still on the side of the angels”. It is fact that Intellectuals do a lot to shape public opinion. They decide what and when we hear, from whom we hear it and with what spin. They are massively important and anybody involved in social change must study them. But whether it be Keynes, Hayek, Sowell or others on Economics; Anthony Fauci and his minions on health; Ralph Nader, Al Gore, the IPCC or politicians like AOC spewing their theories on Global Warming—society should weed out the false prophets amongst the lot and do something in rare form these days: use our COMMONSENSE. One thing is certain: while so-called experts spew their theories and often have the power to change the course of history, they are not always proven right but you can be certain there will be no penalty—they simply shrug their shoulders and exit into obscurity (only to be revived periodically by the likes of Jonathan Power). To quote Thomas Sowell on Keynesian Economics: “Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.” The world’s problems — and at this time there are many — don’t need arrogant elitists whose proclamations cannot stand up to contradictions; what is needed is commonsense and holding feet to the fire. This goes for economic, health, education, foreign relations policies (and any that I missed that are currently in chaos).

1 month ago

Modern Monetary Theory based on Keynesian Theory can be a useful concept. The reason it has failed is entirely due to political leadership. Worldwide, most politicos lack the discipline to reduce the debt and spending during the good times. Many Austrian Economists believe that 50% debt to GDP is a manageable number. Panama was on this track prior to the pandemic. Once a country passes the 100% debt to GDP, there is no turning back and a financial reset will eventually occur. The US is currently at 130% based on official debt and close to 850% based on total liabilities. The mechanics are straightforward – at 100% debt to GDP debt service displaces the capital needed to grow. As Alex pointed out, this publication seems to be carrying water for the people spending money or collecting the interest.

1 month ago

Surely then Alex, you must be a proponent of the conservative's hue and cry for "trickle down economics"?? Everyone says they want to grow the economy, but true capitalists only see that happening by low low taxes, allowing for the benefits to flow down to the masses. Govt stay out! In reality though the "trickle down" never quite trickles down in the way it is hoped. That reality, coupled with the very short term attention span of the masses, allows the true capitalist to continue to pad his pocket ad infinitum. The US economy is the prime example of this principle. Like a seesaw, it goes up and down according to the seat of power at the time. This current administration is trying to spend its way out of recession, but the systems and the prevailing conservative mindset mitigate against it. By next year, the republicans will once again be in power and the renewed push towards further and deeper inequality will resume. It is said that a country always gets the govt it deserves. So I have always been of the opinion that the US is on the downward slide to authoritarian one party govt. All of the groundwork is being laid right before our eyes and Keynesian economic principles are not, and never will be, factored into the prevailing economic system adopted.

1 month ago

So, we learn that: a) Keynes is the greatest economist of the previous century. This cannot be discussed. Its a fact, period. b) A "new world order" (your words, not mine) is good. c) just my conclusion, though: This media outlet is bought and paid for by globalist NGOs, making the journalists intellectual prostitutes.

1 month ago
The comments are the responsibility of each author who freely expresses his opinion and not that of Newsroom Panama.
Please enter a valid email.
Please enter username.
Please, enter a valid message.
Please validate that it is not a robot.
Free Daily Email
Register here for free daily headlines