Skip to main content

Money Week, Part III




If you had to name ONE defining characteristic of the revolution in economics scholarship known as Keynesianism: what would it be? 

Probably this: Keynes offered a distinctive explanation of sharp economic downturns within capitalist systems -- call them crises, depressions, recessions, or whathaveyous. Keynes explained them in a way that suggested a toolbox of remedies. His book, The General Theory, was published in 1936, so you would expect it to have something to say about that subject.  

What is distinctive about his theory is that although it involves the price of borrowing money (i.e. interest rates) it does NOT directly entail monetary policy. His tool box does not include things like "mint silver." Indeed, this may be considered odd because his is the first significant book in the history of economics to appear AFTER the overthrow of the long dominant role of gold either as money or as a backer of money.  Yet he put that issue on the shelf.

Instead, Keynes produced a theory often summarized in the expression "the liquidity trap." This refers to a situation in which interest rates have become so low that the preference for cash is nearly universal. Everybody becomes a hoarder. 

There was always something counter-intuitive about this. Low interest rates 'should' be a spur to economic growth. If I can borrow money at or near 0%, I will likely do so, both as a consumer and as an entrepreneur, and from either end the cheaply borrowed money will stimulate the economy. Right? well ... maybe. 

But a 0% [or 0.1%] rate of interest doesn't necessarily mean I'll be able to borrow money cheaply for either purpose, consumption or business-building. It just means that IF I can borrow money, it will be costless or very cheap to do so. But somebody still has to be willing to lend it to me. Such a low rate may mean that no one is willing. The quantity of money borrowed is definitionally identical to the quantity of money lent! So if everyone is hoarding, no one is getting this cheap money. 

Keynes' talk of a liquidity trap was instigated largely by those infamous bank runs of the early depression years. Banks couldn't lend money at those cheap rates unless they could stay in business, and they couldn't do that if all their depositors decided the cash would be better off in their mattress! No deposits, not functioning banks, no cheap loans, no stimulative consequences. 

Thus the "liquidity trap" and the toolbox for addressing it, including everything from deposit insurance to the insurance of other private sector risks to outright government stimulus spending. I'll say more about this subject shortly.

But this concludes our Money Week. Thank you for reading. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more