My letter to The Economist on Say’s Law

Let me not deny that I am disappointed that The Economist did not print my letter to the editor in response to their article on Say’s Law but I am not in the least surprised. To even admit that there is a case for Say’s Law would discredit the whole of mainstream macro for the past three quarters of a century. It would also almost entirely remove the case for non-productive public spending as a stimulus to growth both during recessions or any other time as well. Here’s the letter which I will annotate as I go along

To the editor

It is very pleasing to see you dealing with the question of Say’s Law which has been virtually exiled from mainstream economic discourse since the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

And having been for many years attempting to explain why understanding this principle is crucial if economic policy is not to continually ruin our economies through various stimulus packages, I am more than aware how difficult making sense of Say’s Law is if you start from modern economic presuppositions.

The Economist actually noted two of them which they instantly breached proving how difficult it is to keep modern presuppositions out of our reading of the classics. First the article correctly said this:

To grasp Say’s point requires two intellectual jumps. The first is to see past money, which can obscure what is really going on in an economy. The second is to jump from micro to macro, from a worm’s eye view of individual plants and specific customers to a panoramic view of the economy as a whole.

Don’t initially think about the operation of an economy using money which will only cloud your understanding. Money can only be brought in at the end after we have understood what is going on in the real economy. Then, not only should you bring in money but it is essential if you are to understand how the existence of money distorts economic relationships. And if we are discussing Say’s Law, the entire economy has to be in view, not just individual firms and industries. But with The Economist having noted you need to leave out money and ignore the micro side in discussing Say’s Law, the very next para reads:

Firms, like coal plants and cotton mills, sell their products for money. But in order to obtain that money, their customers must themselves have previously sold something of value. Thus, before they can become a source of demand, customers must themselves have been a source of supply.

Micro not macro, and immediately introduces money. A modern economist finds the conceptual structure of classical theory almost impossible. This is, moreover, not trivial. In the view of the classics, you will never get even the most basic stuff right if you break these rules. So let me go on with my letter.

So if I may, let me try this tack. First let me point out that the term “Say’s” Law was invented by the American economist, Fred Taylor, and popularised in his introductory text, published in 1921. Say neither invented the concept nor was he its best defender.

Second, the phrase “supply creates its own demand” is not classical in origin but was first used in print by another American economist, Harlan McCracken, in his Value Theory and Business Cycles and published in 1933 – a text Keynes is known to have read while writing the General Theory.

No Keynesian even tries to deny this, and I have brought this up with everyone. All they can do is ignore these facts which has so far worked very well for them. But the point I am making, which they understand all too well, is that the standard mythological story how Keynes came to write The General Theory is wildly incomplete. Taylor and McCracken are included in no one’s versions but my own. But their influence is undeniable. And it also turns Keynes from that honest broker thinking through these various issues into a less than fully honest scholar who was taking in other people’s material without acknowledgement. Now back to the letter.

The actual meaning of Say’s Law was described by Keynes as “Ricardo’s doctrine” [GT page 32] with its meaning clearly stated: “that it was impossible for effective demand to be deficient”.

But to argue that recessions do not occur because of a deficiency of demand does not in any way imply there are not many other potential reasons why an economy might end up in recession with high rates of involuntary unemployment.

Of course, Keynes’s great lie was to argue that classical economists had no theory to explain involuntary unemployment. But it was on the basis of this utterly fantastic untruth that he sold his theory to economists and political leaders, when the reality was that demand deficiency was, among classical economists, the single most discredited fallacy in the whole of economic theory even while they were discussing many other reasons for recessions and why they occurred. Modern macro is a classical fallacy. Why does no one know this? Because there is almost not a single economist you know who could tell you what the classical theory of the cycle and involuntary unemployment was. Try your luck. All economists are still taught classical economists had no such theory. It is possible that Keynes was only an ignoramus but that is the same to me. He knew nothing about the theory of the cycle and he has passed that ignorance onto everyone else. Back to the letter.

The article uses this as an example of the problems caused by demand deficiency: “In Britain government spending was cut by 40% after the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Some 300,000 discharged soldiers and sailors were forced to seek alternative employment.”

Let me therefore point out that at the end of World War II there were even larger reductions in employment across the armed forces as well as massive cuts to armaments expenditure, with the budget immediately balanced in the United States as soon as the war had ended. The consequence was the most sustained period of rapid growth in world history.

They love to point out that it was only World War II that pulled our economies out of the Great Depression, but the dates of the Depression are 1929-1933. World War II starts in 1939. It is only in the US with its Keynesian New Deal that the Depression continued until 1940 when the War did finally pull the US out of the Depression. The great counter-example is, however, what happened when the war came to an end. Get a Keynesian to explain that without the magic words “pent-up demand”. Demand was no more “pent up” in 1945 than it had been in 1935. To the letter again.

There is always demand if producers supply what others wish to buy. That is not a truism. It is not only the basis for explaining why economies enter recessions since producers don’t always supply what buyers want, it is also an attempt to explain what Say’s Law means and why modern macroeconomic theory is misguided.

A brief statement of the classical theory of the cycle. Which leads to the conclusion.

A debate on Say’s Law is long overdue which I hope your article will help to provoke.

The Economist, along with almost the whole of mainstream economics, have not an answer to any of it other than to walk on by. We are going to be plunged into poverty because of this bizarre belief fostered in every macroeconomics text, that spending is what makes an economy grow.

This entry was posted in Classical Economics, Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to My letter to The Economist on Say’s Law

  1. Mpee

    “Money can only be brought in at the end after we hve understood what iw going on in the real economy. ”

    Just a little proof-reading required.

  2. mh

    That would be The Economist that uses any influence it has to bash Donald Trump. The Economist is just establishment media – of course they think the answer is more government spending.

  3. Cassie of Sydney

    I stopped reading The Economist years ago, it has degenerated into a very mediocre journal pushing its pet hates…..Trump, Brexit, Israel, anything remotely centre right or even sensible. A pity as I used to enjoy some of the book reviews and the obituaries.

  4. I’m reading Amity Schlae’s “The Forgotten Man” which is a (new-ish) history of the great depression in the US. I scolded her mildly in my mind when I came across her line that under Say’s law “supply creates its own demand.” But it is undoubtedly a convenient little saying.

  5. RobK

    Thanks Steve,
    In the third last paragraph; “That is not a truism.” Should that perhaps read “That is not justa truism.” As you seem to, rightly, proceed to reinforce it. Or am I missing something?

  6. Steve Kates

    Dear Rob. A Keynesian says that an economy can go into recession for lack of demand. It is not a truism because Keynesians specifically deny that “there is always demand if producers supply what others wish to buy”. If they said people have stopped spending because they have become alarmed by external events which had caused business confidence to fall, they would be repeating the classical theory of the cycle. But what Keynes did was argue that demand just falls off because due to the Marginal Propensity to Consume, as incomes grow, proportionately less output is bought and proportionally more is saved. Meanwhile, because of a falling Marginal Efficiency of Capital, investment does not rise fast enough to soak up all those now excess savings. Utterly idiotic, I know, but that’s the theory. And I apologise to our non-economist readers for the jargon.

  7. RobK

    So aren’t you saying that “there is always demand if producers supply what others wish to buy” is a truism?…but your text says it is not a truism.
    Truism: noun. An obvious truth.

  8. Chris

    20 years ago I started reading The Economist to get a bigger, world-wide picture of what was going on, having taken a Job in Zimbabwe and undertaken a distance-learning MBA. At that time, it was completing the intellectual death spiral to being a shit-stained clone of the toilet that academia and journalism had become.

    18 years ago the ‘Democrat operatives with bylines’ who run The Economist republished Michael Bellesiles’ academic fraud for the joy of bashing gun owners and their values. Whenever I have read it since, I have found nothing that makes me think they will publish anything but politically correct pablum.

    Today I saw the cover on this week’s edition as I went to catch my flight. Did you know Trump uses a KKK hat as a megaphone?

  9. RobK

    I think The Economist followed Scientific American down the AGW rabbit hole.

  10. Steve Kates

    Dear Rob. I think that is my point, that Say’s Law is true but hardly obvious. Therefore, not a truism. That the general glut debate lasted as long as it did [according to Sowell from 1820 till 1848] shows how hard it can be to see the point. Meanwhile, it has always appeared obvious beyond argument to me, but only since I learned what it meant by reading Mill. There is also no doubt it is far from obvious to most of the people I deal with. If you see it, you are definitely not your average ordinary everyday economist. I would never argue that Mill gets everything right, but I would argue that if he is wrong, he is wrong for very deep and abstract reasons that would take a lot of effort to see past.

  11. RobK

    Thanks Steve,
    I see your point. I tripped on the truism word in your context.(in not sure I’d be the only one). I enjoyed the post. Only the one sentence threw me. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

  12. Tel

    It is only in the US with its Keynesian New Deal that the Depression continued until 1940 when the War did finally pull the US out of the Depression.

    Yeah, all that wartime austerity and rationing was when quality of life really started to improve.

  13. RobK

    Tel,
    Yeah, all that wartime austerity and rationing was when quality of life really started to improve.

    Yeah,but. There’s no denying they started producing a lot of stuff that people found desperately handy.

  14. RobK

    Lend-lease was a demonstration of government trying to make the best of a bad lot by trying to be business like about war. 🙂

  15. egg_

    non-productive public spending as a stimulus to growth both during recessions or any other time

    Like ‘temporary jobs’ created by the Sydney Olympics – where are they now?

  16. Chris

    Yeah,but. There’s no denying they started producing a lot of stuff that people found desperately handy.

    On the other hand, there’s the M1 Carbine.

    Production of nylons was pretty helpful though – for getting GIs laid.

  17. FFS, Steve, you cannot argue an ideology with facts. Why do you bother?

  18. Mike of mollymook

    When I studied economics in the 60s and 70s Zimbabwe and South Korea were level pegging. Now… well…enough said.
    China and India were starving then.look at them now.
    Since then the uk ( remember all our cars then were pommy) and oz has lost manufacturing- the engine of prosperity.
    So we can’t look at economic change without the political and social conditions. These factors blind us when we try to see the ‘economic laws’ I fear. That’s the reason that there is so little real understanding I suspect.

  19. Gorky

    Australia could be heading for a Trump-like figure in Parliament and “mass bankruptcies, mass unemployment and mass human misery”.

    That’s if the government takes a hands-off approach to economic policy, rather than direct intervention such as the Rudd-era stimulus package.

    Relax. Its just Wayne Swan.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/wayne-swans-gfc-anniversary-warning-mass-unemployment-human-misery-will-devastate-us/news-story/2af934362cb975a331a009b4c2a89aea

  20. JC

    Relax. Its just Wayne Swan.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/wayne-swans-gfc-anniversary-warning-mass-unemployment-human-misery-will-devastate-us/news-story/2af934362cb975a331a009b4c2a89aea

    He was selected as the best finance minster in the world by Bruce Springsteen, so he does have a right for his weasel little voice to be heard.

    hahahahaha Just kidding.

  21. JC

    The problems I see with the Trumpster.

    My fave president during my lifetime was Reagan. Reagan never sweated the small stuff. Trump does and loses sight of the big picture.

  22. JC

    It is only in the US with its Keynesian New Deal that the Depression continued until 1940 when the War did finally pull the US out of the Depression.

    Yeah, all that wartime austerity and rationing was when quality of life really started to improve.

    Do we really have to re-fight this bullshit again.

    American living standards were lower in 1950 compared to 1947, which was lower than 1941.

    The war was a huge hit to living standards. Lets not kid around. And no, there was no Keynesian heaven because of the war.

    Anyone, who suggests this should be summarily shot without a trial.

  23. sdfc

    JC is confused as ever as to what GDP measures. War spending inflated away the 1930s debt problem by raising national income.

    All your chart shows is that the 1948-49 recession lowered per capita real GDP, so what? Real PCE was 40% higher in 1950 than in 1941.

  24. JC

    JC is confused as ever as to what GDP measures.

    Per capita GDP was lower in 1949 than when the US entered the war. Take another look.

    War spending inflated away the 1930s debt problem by raising national income.

    War spending was war spending. Income was limited to buying rations, as all resources went towards paying for the war.

    All your chart shows is that the 1948-49 recession lowered per capita real GDP, so what? Real PCE was 40% higher in 1950 than in 1941.

    I certainly hope it was higher in 1950, although I don’t see how that non sequitur adds to this discussion. IT was up by a miserable amount too.

    Military Keynesianism not something to pursue if a nation wants to grow per capita GDP.

  25. JC

    Here’s US real GDP BY year. SDFC reckons the 1940’s was a wonderful decade.
    $
    1941 1.49 billion
    1942 1.77
    1943 2.07
    1944 2.24
    1945 2.22
    1946 1.96
    1947 1.96
    1948 2.04
    1949 2.00
    1950 2.22

    It was a horrible decade. Horrible.!

  26. rickw

    The great counter-example is, however, what happened when the war came to an end.

    At the end of WWII there was huge demand for useful goods:

    Caterpillar had a two year long waiting list, in the end my grandfather brought an ex US Army bulldozer from Truk and pulled it completely to bits, checked everything and then put it back together.

    Bridgeport milling machines had a similar waiting list, used machines often selling for more than new ones.

  27. Gorky

    GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.22 percent from 1947 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 16.90 percent in the first quarter of 1950 and a record low of -10 percent in the first quarter of 1958.
    Makes you wonder what the correction on JC’s plot is all about. Who did it? Hansen?

  28. sdfc

    The government slashed spending after the war JC. Real PCE was up 12.4% in 1946 and continued to rise at thereafter, though at a slower rate. Real private investment rose 140% in 1946 and in 1950 was double what it was in 1945.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *