Column on the Keynesian Conceit

The Keynesian Conceit

Tibor R. Machan

From the frying pan into the fire, the saying goes, and it applies
well to the way John Maynard Keynes suggested we deal with economic
uncertainty and to the advice his followers are now foisting upon Barrack

An assumption of some prominent economic theorists involves that
we can pretty much calculate how the future will turn out and, therefore,
tell the difference between very risky and not so risky investments.
This, however, does not hold true when arbitrary forces enter the market
place. And the most important such force is government action. This is
because governments act by way of mandates, or outright force, not
voluntary agreements.

Sure, even with a system of voluntary agreements as the foundation
of the economy nothing is completely certain–after all, who can tell what
the weather will be, or if there will be an earthquake or something else
that has serious economic consequences quite apart from human decisions
which are, themselves, often unreasonable and, thus, unpredictable. But
only government can try to go against widespread human choices that mainly
determine the economy since only government can impose its decisions by
force, without the consent of the governed. And when it does so, the
reasonable, albeit not absolute, certainty of how the future is going to
turn out is completely undermined.

In the face of economic upheavals it is widely believed that most
people will reduce their spending, including their risk-taking. While
this is not a bad assumption, it doesn’t tell the full story. After all,
those who specialize in wealth management will be aware of the assumption
and will often go counter to it so as to gain a bit from the widespread
caution. Second guessing human behavior is one skill in which wealth
managers specialize. And they will often figure out just what the
government is likely to do, too. But then governments will impose their
might to counter the effect of the managers’ manauverings. And so it goes.

Keynes wanted to put a stop to all the guesswork that goes into
economic thinking by advising that government spend when ordinary folks
would act cautiously and save. Since Keynes believed that economic
prosperity is mainly a function of spending money, of an aggressive
consumerism, he found it disturbing that "the possession of actual money
lulls our disquietude," so people refuse to do the spending that would
keep the economy healthy and instead put their money away for later use
(which, by the way, still doesn’t mean it will be idle).

One of Keynes’s contemporary followers, Robert Skidelsky, wrote
that "There was only one sure way to get an increase in spending in the
face of an extreme private-sector reluctance to spend, and that was for
the government to spend the money itself. Spend on pyramids, spend on
hospitals, but spend it must." As Skidelsky noted, "This, in a nutshell,
was Keynes’s economics." And he added, "His purpose, as he say it, was
not to destroy capitalism but to save it from itself."

Capitalism, of course, is not saved by Keynesian economics but
contradicted by it. The reason is that capitalism requires full respect
for the voluntary exchanges in a free market place. When government
prevents this from happening, capitalism is sacrificed. And how might
Keynes’ proposal prevent the voluntary exchanges of the free market place?
By taxing and borrowing–without proper collateral–and similar policies
that counter what people would do of their own free choices. The people
want to save, so expropriate their money and use it to fund projects the
people don’t choose to fund. Build pyramids no one wants, spend on
hospitals even if most people are healthy, spend like mad even if most
people are pleased enough with what they have and therefore choose not
to spend so much for the time being.

So the Keynesian remedy to occasional dips in economic activity is
to put a gun to people’s heads and force them to spend. And it sounds
plausible, when you remove from it the criminal factor and one other
thing: government stupidity. Even if it were not a blatant violation of
peoples’ basic rights to expropriate their money, the assumption that
governments will know how to spend it so as to boost economic activity is
completely off. This is the fallacy of thinking of government as some
kind of God, some Supreme Being who knows better than ordinary mortals
what to do, how to spend resources, when to save and when not to do so.
This monumental–what F. A. Hayek, Keynes’s friend and critic called "the
fatal"–conceit is the age old idea that the state is supreme. And this
is the theory that is now being championed by Barack Obama & Co.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s