It is a fun fact that both the “founder” of economics, Adam Smith, and “founder” of macro economics, John Maynard Keynes, share the same birthday. It is a not so fun fact that both men and their theories are so misunderstood by, not just the general public, but by other economists as well. I realize I’m a day late on wishing them a happy birthday, but I’d like to give them both a belated present: Clearing up some common misconceptions of their work.
Adam Smith was a compassionate person who cared greatly about morality, the well-being of humanity, and the poor. Before publishing his famous economic Treatise, The Wealth of Nations, he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments. A book that starts out with (bold emphasis mine)
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it… a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it
Smith was certainly no “let the poor fend for themselves or die” Ayn Rand disciple. Despite this, the right wing in this country attempts to portray Smith as their mascot. Even to the point of naming right-wing institutes after him. So let’s take a look at some of his views that would get him drummed right out of the republican party, tea party, and the general conservative movement.
Adam Smith recognized “the rich” taking advantage of the poor. This excerpt is from From Book I, chapter 11 of the Wealth of Nations. (bold emphasis mine)
Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself, without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more.
In his day, Smith didn’t use the term ‘the rich’ or the ’1%’ to describe wealthy people living off of the working class. In his day they were called land lords and he didn’t particularly care for them. In this day and age he’d be accused of “envy” and “class warfare”. The excerpt above is just one of many that paints a negative view of landlords.
One last thing on Adam Smith. If you were to claim Adam Smith’s principles of taxation as your own, your right-wing friends and relatives would label you a socialist. It’s really that first principle that would get smith labeled a socialist and thrown out of the tea party. From Book 5, Chapter 2, part 2. (bold emphasis mine)
1. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…
2. The tax which each individual is bound to pay, ought to be certain and not arbitrary…
3. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it…
4. Every tax ought to be so contrived, as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state…
I’m not saying Smith would be a liberal or a democrat if he were alive today. But I am saying he’d be a lot closer to one than he would be to modern conservatives.
Now let’s move on to Keynes. John Maynard Keynes was a pro-capitalist, anti-communist British economist. His biggest contribution to economics was a coherent theory showing that when it comes to analyzing a modern economy, money matters. Up to that point, many thought that one could apply the principles of a barter economy to a monetary economy.
The common perception is that Keynes’s big contribution to economics was that “demand creates its own supply” as opposed to “Say’s law” which stated “supply creates its own demand”. If that was the only thrust of his argument, people wouldn’t still be talking about him. Economists had been making that argument since the time Say made his law. It was the underlying theory behind his conclusion that made him famous. Keynes arrived at his “demand creates its own supply” conclusion based on his analysis of money and it’s effect. There was a reason his major book was called “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” not “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and demand“. There was a reason that the prequel to “The General Theory” was called “A treatise on Money” and not “A Treatise on aggregate demand“. If you still don’t believe me, read this excerpt from the Preface to “The General Theory”.
When I began to write my Treatise on Money I was still moving along the traditional lines of regarding the influence of money as something so to speak separate from the general theory of supply and demand. When I finished it, I had made some progress towards pushing monetary theory back to becoming a theory of output as a whole.
This book, on the other hand, has evolved into what is primarily a study of the forces which determine changes in the scale of output and employment as a whole; and, whilst it is found that money enters into the economic scheme in an essential and peculiar manner, technical monetary detail falls into the background. A monetary economy, we shall find, is essentially one in which changing views about the future are capable of influencing the quantity of employment and not merely its direction.
There is something else about Keynes. He shows that, because of money, the state must play a role in the economy to maintain full employment. This has spawned two common misconceptions: One is that conservatives demonize Keynes as the second-coming of Karl Marx. The other is that in a recession, the government should spend money all willy-nilly until the recession is over.
For the first misconception, Keynes seemed ready for the attack. In the last chapter of “The General Theory” he states several times he is no socialist and does not advocate it.
But beyond this, no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community.
To put the point concretely, I see no reason to suppose that the existing system seriously misemploys the factors of production which are in use. There are, of course, errors of foresight; but these would not be avoided by centralizing decisions.
But there will still remain a wide field of the exercise of private initiative and responsibility. Within this field the traditional advantages of individualism will still hold good.
Finally, if your only understanding of Keynes is, “use government stimulus to get out of recessions”, you haven’t fully understood him. Keynes made clear that in a monetary economy, there is chronic under-consumption and under-utilization of resources. Even during expansions there is a need for “social investment” (though not necessarily as much). If the government can always guarantee full employment levels of spending, the private sector will respond by making their own investments and thereby cut the amount government needs to make. There’s much more to Keynes than just his conclusion of demand management. But they’ll have to wait as this post is too long already. They’ll have to wait until next year.