Monday, December 01, 2008

The paradox of extravagance.

John Maynard Keynes was profoundly influential in the field of economics, which is a bit of a shame because some of what he said needed to be thought out more. But while his unthinking acolytes continue to practice his solutions to the current economic crisis, it is worthwhile exploring one of his ideas further.

The paradox of thrift was one of those ideas of Keynes which explain the current government policy of "stimulus". It is assumed that in a normal household there is a balance between savings and spending. And tets take a hypothetical fellow who has a thousand dollars a week to spend, and let's suppose in normal times this fellow saves two hundred dollars and spends eight hundred dollars on stuff and services. That eight hundred dollars of expenditure, keeps business of all kinds profitable and in operation. On the other hand, the money that he has saved is put in a bank which then lends it out to other businesses which need it. There is both consumer demand and capital availability.

Now if our friend decides to save three hundred dollars a week, the amount left over to spend is seven hundred, a reduction of one hundred dollars. There is less consumer demand to go around and business is poor. Likewise if our friend saves only one hundred dollars, then there is more consumer demand and hence business prospers. Therefore the way to stimulate businesses is to increase consumption. However for a given income, more spending will mean less saving.

Should savings become scarce, in a natural market, the demand for savings would push up the rates of interest which would encourage more saving and decrease consumption. In a normal situation this would happen continuously so that the market would quietly hum along. Now Keynes's paradox always assumed that there would be savings to trade for consumption.



Keynes assumed wrongly. From the above chart, the U.S is spent. There are no more savings to trade for consumption. It also means that the U.S has no savings for investment. This is the paradox of extravagance. If an economy spends at its limit, then there are no savings for investment, and eventually the economy starts to contract due to capital starvation. Stimulating an economy to its maximum, eventually leads to a an economic contraction. And this contraction is going to start occurring during a period of economic boom, just as what is happening now.


Of course, one can argue that there is capital from overseas, which one can use to stimulate the economy. The logic being, that we should borrow more to get ourselves out of debt. If you can't see the flaws in the argument, then you should be the Treasury Secretary. The problem with Anglo influenced economies is that they continue to consume more than they produce, stimulating them will perpetuate the same and drive them further into debt. Over consumption is probably worse state of affairs than under consumption, since there are at least savings to invest in the latter situation.

Furthermore, this state of affairs puts a country's economy at the mercy of the providers of capital. If the Chinese and Arabs were to switch off the spigots; it's all over. If I were a Taiwanese I would be extremely nervous; the U.S. is not exactly going to bite the hand that feeds it. On the other hand, should the U.S default on its debt either explicitly or through inflation, the spigots will be closed for non-political reasons as well and U.S interest rates will go through the roof at a time of high indebtedness.

Oh just as I was about to post this, I noticed that Martin Wolf, of the Financial Times, was thinking along similar lines. His article is worth a read.

The economy needs to be restored to a point where there is approximately a 5-10% personal savings rate. This is what constitutes a healthy economy and economic policy should be geared to that goal. However given the fact that most Anglo economies have the same personal savings chart as above, trying to increase the amount of consumer savings is going to result in a contraction of consumer demand. Business is going to shrink, in the Anglo countries by a lot.
There is a lot of pain coming.

4 comments:

Moira Breen said...

Thanks for the link over from the Blowhards'. Good post. Saw the Wolf piece from the link over at Naked Capitalism earlier; Wolf seems mercifully non-insane. I haven't figured out if the leaders and advisor-economists of the Angloshphere nations are hopelessly stupid, hopelessy corrupt, or just, well, insane. I'm not sure what's more terrifying: that they actually still believe in their globaloney ideology, as exporter nations continue to merrily pursue their national interests, old school, or that they're consciously "delivering us bound to our foes", for their own gain. (Not that we don't have it coming, for letting them get away with it.)

On a more pleasant note, I like that statue illustrating your blog. My late mother would kill me for not knowing who it is, just from the symbols, but I confess ignorance. First guess, St. Luke, based on your profession. But Luke goes about with an ox, or the like, no? St. Paul? A sword goes with St. Paul, right? I'm a hopeless ignorant heathen. Anyway, who made him and where does he abide?

The Social Pathologist said...

Hi Moira, thanks for dropping by.

I haven't figured out if the leaders and advisor-economists of the Angloshphere nations are hopelessly stupid, hopelessy corrupt, or just, well, insane.

All of the above. I've always felt that Monetarism and Keynesism were variants of the same theme; they differ in who gets to control the printing press. I think the guys that run the country, especially in the areas involved with economics are technically proficient but not wise. I think a lot of the current problem has its roots in the concept of wealth maximisation as an object independent of circumstance. Profits from potato chips are just as good as profits made from silicon ones. Most accountants and economists don't care how a business goes about making a profit, yet in the long run it's vitally important. Here's another paper you might find interesting. It's by Charles Munger, Buffet's second in command.
He basically states that how you make a profit is just as important as the profit itself. The second and third order effects of economic policy are vitally important with regard to the long term viability of economic systems.
Something modern economics does not touch. Unfortunately the disciples of modern economics aren't that smart to see the flaws, to all of our detriment.

As for the statue, yes it is rather impressive. It is a statue of St Paul. I got the image from a book
Art Treasures of Croatia
. Unfortunately I have loaned the book to a friend so I cannot give you the sculptor's name or where the statue is located, suffice to say that it comes from a little Croatian church on the Dalmatian coast; my ancestors are from that region. When my friend brings back the book, I'll send you the details.

Moira Breen said...

Belated thanks for the info and the link, SP.

Anonymous said...

Hi there!
I would like to burn a theme at here. There is such a nicey, called HYIP, or High Yield Investment Program. It reminds of ponzy-like structure, but in rare cases one may happen to meet a company that really pays up to 2% daily not on invested money, but from real profits.

For several years , I make money with the help of these programs.
I'm with no money problems now, but there are heights that must be conquered . I get now up to 2G a day , and my first investment was 500 dollars only.
Right now, I managed to catch a guaranteed variant to make a sharp rise . Visit my blog to get additional info.

http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]