Economics 101: Money, John Maynard Keynes, and Monty Python
In a couple weeks I'll be at the Idea Camp (you should come; it's free) facilitating a discussion about money. Now, as a caveat, it's worth saying that I don't have any right now. But what I do have are some hard-earned ideas about money, about our culture's relationship to money, and what we might do well to change about that relationship.
Over the next couple weeks I'll be working out some thoughts on this blog, so please feel free to join in the discussion and help me refine my understandings. For starters, a quick foundational discussion of values and economics.
Economics, more than being about money, is about how people make decisions. It's about how we decide what to invest our resources in -- our time, our money, our commitment, etc. The most influential economist of the last century, John Maynard Keynes, went further than to study and describe decision making, he prescribed it:
Keynesian policy prescription became the basis for much economic thought and policy, including Roosevelt's New Deal. I believe his moral prescription has shaped our country as well.
When John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) first came to America, he says he was struck by the unabashed pursuit of excessive wealth. The British at the time were more reserved about money, he recalls, most being satisfied with a comfortable salary for an honest day's work. But not the Americans.
Keynes' prescription has been realized, with restraint and generosity being caged to let avarice and precaution work their dark magic on our economy. What Keynes did not realize, though, is that decades of economic wizardry would see several generations brought up seeing fair treated as foul and foul as fair, seeing excess praised over simplicity and selfishness rationalized as economical. His prescription for economic growth was also one for risky cultural engineering. As Shumacher asked, How can a system founded on greed ever lead to peace?
And Keynes also seems to have failed to ask the question, Where is the rich man who says, 'I have enough'? He is rare, and often so rich as to be statistically invisible. Bill Gates might fall into this category, and perhaps Buffet and his peers, though he keeps investing. But the millionaire down the street has not stopped his pursuit of wealth, though he lives like the kings of not long ago. I myself hover around the 90th percentile in world income, but I haven't found that financial peace of mind that Keynes promised.
My economic thoughts will buck Keynes and subjugate macroeconomic concerns to personal and (I'm stretching here) universal values. Where Keynes believed that economic development would solve the values problem, I suspect that values will guide us to a more sustainable economy.
Over the next couple weeks I'll be working out some thoughts on this blog, so please feel free to join in the discussion and help me refine my understandings. For starters, a quick foundational discussion of values and economics.
Economics, more than being about money, is about how people make decisions. It's about how we decide what to invest our resources in -- our time, our money, our commitment, etc. The most influential economist of the last century, John Maynard Keynes, went further than to study and describe decision making, he prescribed it:
"For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."The foulness of which he writes is the love of money, a vice known to many as the root of all kinds of evil. Keynes prescribes a subjugation of values such as generosity to this vice for at least 100 years, after which he says society will have become so rich as to throw off such "psuedo-morals" and see "the money-motive at its true value ... a somewhat disgusting morbidity."
Keynesian policy prescription became the basis for much economic thought and policy, including Roosevelt's New Deal. I believe his moral prescription has shaped our country as well.
When John Cleese (of Monty Python fame) first came to America, he says he was struck by the unabashed pursuit of excessive wealth. The British at the time were more reserved about money, he recalls, most being satisfied with a comfortable salary for an honest day's work. But not the Americans.
Keynes' prescription has been realized, with restraint and generosity being caged to let avarice and precaution work their dark magic on our economy. What Keynes did not realize, though, is that decades of economic wizardry would see several generations brought up seeing fair treated as foul and foul as fair, seeing excess praised over simplicity and selfishness rationalized as economical. His prescription for economic growth was also one for risky cultural engineering. As Shumacher asked, How can a system founded on greed ever lead to peace?
And Keynes also seems to have failed to ask the question, Where is the rich man who says, 'I have enough'? He is rare, and often so rich as to be statistically invisible. Bill Gates might fall into this category, and perhaps Buffet and his peers, though he keeps investing. But the millionaire down the street has not stopped his pursuit of wealth, though he lives like the kings of not long ago. I myself hover around the 90th percentile in world income, but I haven't found that financial peace of mind that Keynes promised.
My economic thoughts will buck Keynes and subjugate macroeconomic concerns to personal and (I'm stretching here) universal values. Where Keynes believed that economic development would solve the values problem, I suspect that values will guide us to a more sustainable economy.
Labels: Economics, The Idea Camp
.jpg)

9 Comments:
Hey James,
Thanks for the post. Interesting as always. I haven't really read Keynes, but I am struck by your use of him here. Most who criticize the culture of wealth, irresponsible consumption, or what have you, etc., like to make use of Friedman, Von Mises, or Hayek. I've always associated Keynes with the birth of the welfare state, your use of here is interesting. Thanks for that, it is definitely something I wasn't aware of.
I like how this post brings values into the discussion of economics. Too much talk about economics presumes that it is a hard science (most economists won't like to hear this). In other words, it is assumed that economics is less about what we want as a society - or rather can do as a society and economic agents - and really about how to do economics correctly.
It is in this sense that I take issue with your formulation of economics as being about making decisions. I think it is more useful to see economics as simply a process of production and consumption. Making decisions is certainly a part of this process, but not an economic part. Rather, it is a political part. This is true insofar as decisions are infused with valuations, with ideas that correspond to our wants, desires, and visions for the future. Politics, in this sense, constructs economics and its processes. We are not simply the inheritors of an economic system, we are the inheritors of a set of beliefs that argue the good life is best achieved when one thinks only of herself in producing and consuming goods and services.
I really appreciate your post because I believe it points to the way in values are infused in our material activity. Thanks for the thoughts.
Thanks for the thoughts Bryan, and the kind words!
Your critique of my definition of economics is spoken like a true political philosopher :) I think limiting economics to "simply a process of production and consumption" would be like limiting politics to simply a process of empowering and governing. Not to mention, every economist I've met (and I've studied under several) would disagree rather vehemently with you.
I think that each field is deeply interested in human decision making (itself a study in psychology, neurology, cybernetics, computer science, etc.) and offers its own unique analysis of and commentary on the subject.
That said, I greatly admire your political analysis of decision making and find it extremely relevant to most interesting discussions of economics.
James,
I certainly would not claim that your definition of economics is wrong. I do not like to play Truth games. And you are absolutely correct to say that lots of different fields (or systems) of knowledge are concerned with human decision-making. I, however, think it is useful to see politics or the political as an eternally open field, to the extent that it does not constitute a field of knowledge anymore. It is open in the sense of pointing to the contingency of our beliefs, values and inherited histories. Politics can't be closed because no one has any greater purchase on "how things should be" than anyone else.
So, what does this have to do with economics? Well, it has do with how we make decisions or rather how values and beliefs govern our decision-making processes. These values and things that shape our decision-making processes are not reducible to anything. (This not only would be rejected by the economists you've studied under, who consistently try to reduce economic decision-making to self-interested actors or rational choice theory, but by most political scientists as well).
So, I delimit economics as a process/activity of production and consumption for pragmatic purposes. It allows us to see how this process is infused and constructed by political activity, how it is governed by systems of beliefs and cultures of thought that inform how individuals/collectivities go about producing and consuming material life.
Okay, that is my last long post... I promise. Love the discussion.
Hey James--
Interesting thoughts! My initial reaction to the causal relationship established here between economics and values is much like the chicken and the egg quandary; there is certainly evidence to support each point of view, but as I delve further into thought as to how these two interrelate, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue effectively one as the progenitor of the other. It is for this reason, that I partially agree with you stating that each of these phenomena are co-dependent of each other. I think the ebb and flow of the economic climate can certainly affect one's values and beliefs towards consumerism; just as how the change in one's values can affect the economy if, and only if, those values are adopted on a large scale.
It is quite a poignant topic in these times of economic hardship. I look forward to seeing how this discussion develops!
Hey James - It's very cool that you're tackling this one... it's huge.
And Idea Camp sounds fantastic.
Bryan, I completely respect your treatment of economics with regards to your research in political philosophy, and see how useful it is to concisely define a given field when your studies interact with such a wide array of disciplines.
It got me thinking about how much philosophy there is in your politics, if you will. And how much there is in my economics. And how of course we'll infuse our chosen fields with as much interesting material as possible - in this case values and how they shape our decisions. It might be appropriate for me to call this a post on economic philosophy. That way our common ground is clear.
I look forward to continued discussions here. A new post is forthcoming.
Nick, interesting points. I think you're right - a person's economic situation often will shape their values. I suppose I don't think it should, not that I'm immune to that effect myself.
Keynes called for a conscious priority to be put on making money for its own sake, and a conscious sacrifice to be made of certain personal and cultural values. And I don't think it was because he was a monster. It was because he envisioned a world in which there was enough money finally made that no one would find themselves in need. But I believe the truth is that the process that he prescribed to achieve this made its achievement impossible.
Thanks Mike. It is huge. I feel like Alice in the rabbit hole right now as I dive deeper into our cultural values, especially regarding money and consumption. We've come a long way down a dangerous road.
James,
I agree with you that making money for money's sake in order to eradicate greed is fool-hardy. Solomon even said it in Ecclesiastes 5:10, "Whomever loves money never has money enough." Not to say that Keynes endorsed the "love" of money per se. But I think it's nearly impossible for this love to not develop when one is actively pursuing it with the vigilance of which Kaynes speaks.
Post a Comment
<< Home