The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

The “Keynesian Revolution”—the Masterpiece That Changed Economics

A deep dive into one of the most groundbreaking economic manuscripts of the 20th century

Ever wondered why governments swoop in to stabilize economies during upheavals like the Great Depression or the 2008 recession? Unraveling the Labyrinth of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes could hold the key! This revolutionary manuscript, first published in 1936, brought forth radical concepts that rattled the economic sphere.

Contrary to the then-prevalent belief that economies self-correct, Keynes propounded that inadequate demand could lead to sustained high unemployment. Consequently, he recommended government intervention—say, through fiscal stimulus—to help rev up demand.

The manuscript delves into why we prefer to have a cash cushion (liquidity preference), the tug-of-war between spending and saving (marginal utility), how demand steers economic output (principle of effective demand), and how spending can ripple through and invigorate the economy (the multiplier effect).

Does this all sound like Greek to you? Fear not! In this Summary, we’ll demystify these complex theories and ideas, allowing you to grasp Keynes’s trailblazing approach to economics.

Classical economic theories often misinterpret the causes of unemployment

Keynes’s dissection of traditional economic theory spotlighted a few core assumptions of classical economics. Let’s delve deeper into his perspective:

First, classical economists propose that a worker’s pay mirrors the value they bring to an enterprise. They believe that if a firm chooses not to hire someone, the firm’s loss is tantamount to the wage that the worker would have earned. Put simply, they believe that a worker’s worth to a company is directly correlated with their pay.

The second presumption of classical economics is that a worker’s pay is the bare minimum at which they’d agree to work. This is often seen as a balance where the labor demand intersects with the supply.

But these assumptions rubbed Keynes the wrong way as they overlooked a significant real-world scenario: involuntary unemployment.

Keynes observed that there are situations where employees are both willing and able to work for the current wage, but they’re unable to secure a job. Classical economists would generally claim that this is a form of voluntary unemployment since they assume that workers are merely refusing to work for lower wages. They believe that soaring unemployment during economic slumps is due to workers’ reluctance to accept pay cuts.

Keynes took a stand against this view, arguing that the jobless rate can swing widely without any corresponding changes in workers’ wage expectations or productivity. This suggests that other factors are at play impacting the unemployment rate, factors that the classical theory falls short of addressing.

He contended that the classical theory’s assumptions failed to accurately capture the intricacies of the real world, particularly regarding involuntary unemployment and workers’ stance on wages. His critique aimed to highlight these inadequacies and offer a more sophisticated understanding of employment and wages.

The Tango of Job Creation and Consumer Spending

Let’s dive headfirst into the deep ocean of Keynes’s theory. It offers a captivating insight into the complex interplay between employment, income, and consumption in an economy.

The cumulative income of a community — whether tangible assets or cash — is directly proportional to the number of people employed. The math is pretty straightforward: higher employment equates to higher income.

Then we encounter a factor known as ‘propensity to consume.’ While it sounds complex, it simply describes the likelihood of people spending their income. More money usually translates into more spending. But intriguingly, the surge in spending doesn’t always keep pace with the growth in income. This disconnect forms a critical piece of the economic puzzle.

So, how do enterprises gauge their employment needs? The theory presents two crucial factors: anticipated consumer spending and the community’s investment ambitions. Sum these two, and you’ve got ‘effective demand.’

The concept of equilibrium employment then enters the equation. It denotes a balance established by the supply volume, the propensity to consume, and the scope of new investments. But here’s the twist – there’s a cap to this balance, which occurs when the actual wages paid equal the workers’ perceived discomfort from working.

This Keynesian viewpoint sharply contrasts with the classical theory that promotes maximum employment through competition. It argues that scaling up employment may not always trigger an investment boom large enough to bridge the gap between the supply price and the expected earnings from consumer spending. In simpler terms, bolstering employment may not deliver the anticipated economic uplift.

So, here’s the key takeaway: The employment level is not just influenced by how people feel about work. It’s also driven by the propensity to consume and the speed of new investments.

Interestingly, wealthier communities may witness a wider gap between their actual and potential production. Why? They don’t consume as much of their output and are constantly scouting for more investment opportunities to maintain full employment. What if they run out of such opportunities? They might have to dial down their output to match their subdued levels of consumption and investment.

In a nutshell, this theory emphasizes the importance of three components: understanding our consumption tendencies, unraveling the efficiency of capital, and interpreting interest rates. With a handle on these, we can better comprehend how prices mesh with the broader economic narrative.

 

 

The Dance Between Investment and Employment

Let’s delve into the enthralling dance of investment decisions and their impact on employment.

In the epicentre of this narrative, two seminal concepts take centre stage — the Marginal Propensity to Consume (or MPC) and the elusive economic Multiplier. These act as the protagonist and antagonist in the riveting tale of investment and employment dynamics.

Imagine the MPC as a psychic seer, divining how society will divvy up the next serving of economic prosperity between consumption and investment. This is essentially the pulse of a community’s consumption tendencies. Suppose a society spends nine out of every ten extra dollars it earns — that indicates a high MPC. In such an instance, the multiplier effect — the aftereffect that forecasts the total income boost from an increase in investment — also escalates.

This Multiplier has a sibling — the employment multiplier. It measures the total employment uptick in response to a surge in investment-related employment. However, these two don’t always march in sync due to possible disparities across various industries.

The plot thickens when people don’t alter their consumption habits despite an income increase. This situation would only mirror the direct employment uplift from expanded investment, like public works. But, if people splurge all their additional income, it’s like poking the dragon of limitless price inflation — a monster no one wants to rouse.

The narrative takes a riveting twist when the MPC value is almost one. Even marginal adjustments in investment can ignite enormous employment swings. A small investment boost could suffice to attain full employment. Conversely, if the MPC is slightly above zero, minor investment fluctuations will create small employment ripples, but reaching full employment might necessitate a sizeable investment thrust.

Let’s take a real-world look at these interactions with public works as our example — state-financed, large-scale projects. Suppose a government employs 100,000 new workers with a multiplier of 4. It seems employment would catapult by 400,000, right? Wrong! Different elements can either escalate or mute the impact.

For instance, the financing method of the new policy could result in rising interest rates, hitting the brakes on other investments. The government’s program could sway confidence, potentially affecting capital efficiency. In a global economy, some benefits of increased investment might seep into other countries, modifying domestic employment impacts.

As employment skyrockets, people might choose to spend less of their extra income. Other factors like increased income for entrepreneurs or a dip in negative savings tied to reemployment could also tweak the MPC.

Investment scale also influences the multiplier effect — generally, it tends to be larger for minor investment boosts than for larger ones. For significant alterations, we need to consider the average multiplier over the range in question.

In essence, even minor investment fluctuations can trigger considerable shifts in employment and income, courtesy of the multiplier principle’s wizardry. This highlights that understanding the intricate choreography of investment, consumption, and employment is crucial for intelligent policy decisions and accurate projections.

Interestingly, even actions like burying money in old coal mines and hiring people to dig it up can jump-start the economy by increasing employment and consumption, particularly during high unemployment periods. But, as Keynes emphasizes, if there are less “wasteful” ways of boosting employment — like building houses — those should be prioritized. So, while it may seem counterintuitive, even apparently pointless spending can perform an economic sleight of hand, enriching a community by bolstering employment and consumption.

Grasping the fragile balance between investment, consumption, and employment isn’t just vital for economists and policymakers; it’s also essential for all of us to navigate our complex world better.

Rationality isn’t Always Present in Investment Decisions

Let’s conclude our discussion by spotlighting the role of conventions in economic behaviour.

First, let’s examine how we shape our expectations about the future. We tend to prioritize what we’re confident about, even if it might not directly apply to the situation at hand. Therefore, our current situation molds our future expectations. For example, when we foresee significant changes on the horizon but lack specific details, our confidence can waver.

Next, let’s explore the sway of confidence in the economy, particularly on investment profitability. Confidence molds how we make investment decisions. Predicting future profits from investments isn’t always a sure bet. Consider a railway or a copper mine. Can you accurately forecast what they’ll yield in a decade? Probably not. It’s essentially a roll of the dice.

In the yesteryears of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism, business was a mixture of skill and chance. Investments often felt like wagers, driven more by ambition and intuition than by calculations. Today, things have changed. Markets allow us to reassess investments and alter our commitments as needed. It’s akin to a farmer deciding to farm based on the day’s weather. However, this approach can also influence new investments, sometimes not for the better.

Here’s the catch: our investment evaluations hinge on a convention, an agreement to assume that things will remain the same unless we expect a change. But we know life is unpredictable. This convention does offer some stability, as long as we stick to it. Short-term investments become safer as we can adjust them before significant changes occur.

The convention isn’t infallible and can create uncertainty for large investments. Who would want to risk vast sums when the future is clouded in mystery?

Simultaneously, there’s been a downturn in real knowledge due to increased ownership by individuals who neither manage nor understand the businesses they invest in. This trend erodes the market’s capacity to make truly informed decisions.

Investors also tend to overreact to temporary fluctuations in investment profits, which may not have a significant influence on long-term outcomes. For instance, shares of ice manufacturing companies might be more valuable in summer due to high profits, and the British railway system might appreciate in value due to a bank holiday. These examples uncover an unrealistic market tendency to overreact to ephemeral circumstances.

Market valuations can also oscillate dramatically due to mass psychology, often prompted by factors that don’t significantly affect the expected yield. These swings can create waves of optimism and pessimism that aren’t anchored in concrete investment calculations.

Rather than rectifying market inaccuracies, professional investors often focus on anticipating short-term changes in valuation, feeding into the same psychological dynamics as the general public. Keynes critiques this behaviour, arguing that skilled investment should aim to navigate future uncertainties, instead of just outsmarting others in the market.

Keynes wraps up by discussing the complex dance between investor sentiment, lending institutions, and the overall health of the market, highlighting the need for a delicate balance between speculation and enterprise, and the role of spontaneous optimism. He leaves us with a word of caution: economic activities, being intrinsically human endeavors, are often powered by more than just numbers.

Conclusions

Keynes’s effective demand theory suggests that employment levels are influenced not just by worker preferences, but also by societal consumption patterns, new investment rates, and complex economic multipliers. It underscores that even seemingly wasteful spending can ignite economic growth by increasing employment and consumption.

Related Posts