comments on rwer issue no 75
real-world economics review issue no. 75 – 27/06/16
Download whole issue
To qualify for posting, comments must refer directly to the RWER paper, and not just to other comments. Posted comments may be considered for publication in the journal.
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Our meaningless modern lives: Part 1
- The productivity/pay gap and phony debates
- Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- In praise of pluralism
- USA: The Great Prosperity / The Great Regression : 5 charts
- Deaths of infants and young children in Gaza. A fact-based estimate.
- Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- The Keynes-Tinbergen debate on econometrics
- The money multiplier – neat, plausible, and utterly wrong
- How to be a great economist
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Steven Klees on In praise of pluralism
- ghholtham on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- ghholtham on Deaths of infants and young children in Gaza. A fact-based estimate.
- David Harold Chester on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- ghholtham on Deaths of infants and young children in Gaza. A fact-based estimate.
- Geoffrey Matthews on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- sackergeoff on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- deshoebox on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- Geoffrey Matthews on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- Hardy Hanappi on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- lacikulinkulin on Perinomics: a yet to exist discipline
- Giles Anthony Conway-Gordon on In praise of pluralism
- David Harold Chester on Post-real economics — a severe case of mathiness
- Giles Conway-Gordon on Post-real economics — a severe case of mathiness
- faultybeacon on Post-real economics — a severe case of mathiness
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
In Re: Rethinking Piketty: critique of the critiques
(a work in progress)
Suzanne Helburn [University of Colorado at Denver, USA]
(1)
In the section where you outline Piketty’s argument I suggest that you not use the ratio K/Y as part of your description of his argument as Piketty does not use that notation, but simply s/g. You may wish to use K/Y yourself but at least you should inform your readers, a number of whom will probably will not have finished Piketty, that you are using your own notation and not his. However familiar K\Y may be to economists, there is no K/Y anywhere in the book.
This is especially important when you are claiming to quote Piketty directly. You have him quoted as saying, on page 166
Specifically, Piketty states “In the long run the β or K/Y is related in a simple and transparent way to the savings rate s and to the growth rate g according to the following formula β = s/g”.
What Piketty says on 166 in the HUP text I am looking at is
“In the long run the capital/income ratio β is related in a simple and transparent way to the savings rate s and the growth rate g according to the following formula:
β = s/g”.
He doesn’t say K/Y and he does not italicize,as you have done, the words “simple and transparent.” He also says ( a minor point, but verbatim is verbatim) not “and to the growth rate” but “and the growth rate.”
(2)
Every prospective commentator on and reviewer of Piketty should have to sign a declaration that he or she has read and understood your comment below. How did most everyone miss this the first time around, especially the harshly critical and dismissive reviews?
Fundamentally, it is important to recognize that Piketty’s accomplishment is empirical. He has amassed the data necessary to make his argument, buttressed by useful descriptive detail. He makes no theoretical claims. Given all the criticism levelled by mainstream economists on this point, it is useful to note that in the 700 pages of the book, only two-and-a-half pages in chapter 6 are devoted to “growth theory”
Eloquently put!
The other half plus the hitherto missing true foundations of macroeconomics
Comment on Richard Koo on ‘The other half of macroeconomics and the three stages of economic development’
Richard Koo’s paper about macroeconomic development is descriptively accurate and historically rich in detail. It is far above the low level of familiar orthodox and heterodox economics. What is lacking, though, is a sound theoretical foundation. This cannot be otherwise because economics as a whole lacks sound foundations. There is no longer anything to dispute, BOTH microeconomics and macroeconomics is a scientific failure.
Koo puts it thus: “Macroeconomics is still a very young science compared to such disciplines as physics and chemistry. It started when Keynes began taking about the concept of aggregate demand in the 1930s, only 85 years ago. As a very young science, it has achieved only limited coverage of the broad range of economic phenomena and remains prone to fads and influences.”
Reality is far worse, indeed. Keynes based macroeconomics on logically and conceptually defective foundations and neither Post Keynesians nor New Keynesians nor Anti-Keynesians have realized Keynes’s foundational blunder in 85 years (2011b; 2014).
Keynes defined the formal core of the General Theory as follows: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income – consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (1973, p. 63)
This two-liner 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., 2010, p. 12)
Let this sink in, Keynes had NO idea of the fundamental concepts of economics, viz. profit and income. Because profit is ill-defined the whole theoretical superstructure of macroeconomics is false, in particular ALL I=S/IS-LM models (2011a; 2013b).
Koo starts his analysis as follows: “One person’s expenditure is another person’s income. It is this unalterable linkage between the expenditures and incomes of millions of thinking households and businesses that makes the study of the economy both interesting and unique.”
Note that Koo’s first sentence is identical with Keynes’s. For every economist this proposition is pure common sense ― a mere accounting identity. As a matter of fact, it is provably false and this explodes the whole of macro. Economists do not grasp the elementary mathematics of accounting (2012a) and this goes a long way to explain why economics has never risen above the proto-scientific level.
To get out of failed economic theory requires nothing less than a full-blown paradigm shift from accustomed microfoundations and Keynes’s flawed macrofoundations to entirely new macrofoundations. In other words, the faulty axiomatic foundations of standard economics have to be replaced.
In the following a sketch* of the formally and empirically correct price, employment, and profit theory is given. The most elementary version of the objective structural employment equation reads (2012b):
From this equation follows:
(i) An increase of the expenditure ratio rhoE leads to higher employment (the letter rho stands for ratio). An expenditure ratio rhoE greater than 1 indicates credit expansion, a ratio rhoE less than 1 indicates credit contraction.
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment, a slowdown of growth does the opposite.
(iii) An increase of the factor cost ratio rhoF=W/PR leads to higher employment.
The complete and testable employment equation is a bit longer and contains in addition profit distribution, public deficit spending, and import/export.
Item (i) and (ii) cover Keynes’s and Koo’s arguments about aggregate demand. What the Keynesian multiplier lacks is the factor cost ratio rhoF as defined in (iii). This variable embodies the price mechanism which, however, does not work as the representative economist hallucinates. As a matter of fact, overall employment INCREASES if the average wage rate W INCREASES relative to average price P and productivity R.
For the relationship between real wage, productivity, profit and real shares see (2015, Sec. 10)
The correct profit equation reads: Qm = Yd+I-Sm (2014, p. 8, eq. (18)). Legend Qm: monetary profit, Yd: distributed profit, Sm: monetary saving, I: investment expenditure. The interaction of I and Sm underlies Koo’s description of economic expansion and balance sheet recession (2013a). What is entirely missing in Koo’s description is the interaction of Qm and Yd.
The profit equation gets a bit longer when import/export and government is included.
Note that OVERALL profit and by consequence the income distribution has NOTHING to do with productivity or low wages or market power. These and other factors affect only the DISTRIBUTION of overall profit BETWEEN firms. What holds on the firms’ level does NOT hold for the economy as a WHOLE. Not to realize this is the fatal insufficiency of economists’ feeble-minded ruminations about the relationship between (average) wage rate, price, productivity, and employment.
Keynes’s approach is macrofounded but incomplete because he had no deeper understanding of the profit, the credit and the price mechanism. Koo’s approach is a clear improvement with regard to the credit mechanism but shares the fundamental conceptual error which is embodied in this simple proposition: Income = value of output. It is as commonsensical and scientifically false as: the sun goes up.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011a). Squaring the Investment Cycle. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1911796: 1–25. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1911796
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011b). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966438
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012a). The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential
Rectification of the Accounting Approach. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2124415:
1–23. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=2124415
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012b). Keynes’s Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Desaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130421.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013a). Redemption and Depression. SSRN Working Paper
Series, 2343561: 1–28. URL
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2343561
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013b). Settling the Theory of Saving. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2220651: 1–23. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=2220651
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2489792: 1–13. URL
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2489792
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working
Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2624350
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Tómasson, G., and Bezemer, D. J. (2010). What is the Source of Profit and
Interest? A Classical Conundrum Reconsidered. MPRA Paper, 20557: 1–34.
URL http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20557/
* Students are referred to the working papers for all details and the consistent formal
underpinning of all assertions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665