sexta-feira, 13 de março de 2009

Re: O multiplicador keynesiano

Ver aqui como Rothbard ridiculariza (gostava de usar outro termo, mas acho demasiado grave que isto tenha sido considerado "ciência" durante tanto tempo ... e na verdade ainda é) o conceito de “multiplicador” no seu tratado de economia:

C. The Multiplier

The once highly esteemed “multiplier” has now happily faded in popularity, as economists have begun to realize that it is simply the obverse of the stable consumption function. How­ever, the complete absurdity of the multiplier has not yet been fully appreciated. The theory of the “investment multiplier” runs somewhat as follows:

Social Income = Consumption + Investment

Consumption is a stable function of income, as revealed by statistical correlation, etc. Let us say, for the sake of simplicity, that Consumption will always be .80 (Income).[76]

In that case,

Income = .80 (Income) + Investment..20 (Income) = Investment; orIncome = 5 (Investment).

The “5” is the “investment multiplier.”

It is then obvious that all we need to increase social money income by a desired amount is to increase investment by 1/5 of that amount; and the multi­plier magic will do the rest. The early “pump primers” believed in approaching this goal through stimulating private investment; later Keynesians realized that if investment is an “active” vola­tile factor, government spending is no less active and more cer­tain, so that government spending must be relied upon to pro­vide the needed multiplier effect. Creating new money would be most effective, since the government would then be sure not to reduce private funds. Hence the basis for calling all government spending “investment”: it is “investment” because it is not tied passively to income.

The following is offered as a far more potent “multiplier,” on Keynesian grounds even more potent and effective than the in­vestment multiplier, and on Keynesian grounds there can be no objection to it. It is a reductio ad absurdum, but it is not sim­ply a parody, for it is in keeping with the Keynesian method.

Social Income = Income of (insert name of any person, say the reader) + Income of everyone else.

Let us use symbols:

Social income = Y
Income of the Reader = R
Income of everyone else = V

We find that V is a completely stable function of Y. Plot the two on coordinates, and we find historical one-to-one correspond­ence between them. It is a tremendously stable function, far more stable than the “consumption function.” On the other hand, plot R against Y. Here we find, instead of perfect correlation, only the remotest of connections between the fluctuating income of the reader of these lines and the social income. Therefore, this reader’s income is the active, volatile, uncertain element in the social income, while everyone else’s income is passive, stable, de­termined by the social income.

Let us say the equation arrived at is:

V = .99999 Y

Then, Y = .99999 Y + R

.00001 Y = RY = 100,000 R

This is the reader’s own personal multiplier, a far more pow­erful one than the investment multiplier. To increase social in­come and thereby cure depression and unemployment, it is only necessary for the government to print a certain number of dol­lars and give them to the reader of these lines. The reader’s spending will prime the pump of a 100,000-fold increase in the national income.[77]

Adenda: Science Is as Science Does - "(...) Austrian economists don't claim to be doing empirical science. Keynesians do. What is ironic to me as an empirical scientist, is that it is the Austrians who get their predictions right, while Keynesians seem to have been caught like deer in the headlights.

This pattern is nothing new to the current crisis. It was Ludwig von Mises who predicted the Great Depression, while Irving Fisher, still highly revered by the Keynesians, proceeded to lose his fortune.

It was the Keynesians who assured us that we were headed for a severe recession (which never materialized) after World War II if the government cut back on its spending.

It was Fed chairman Arthur Burns who assured Murray Rothbard that a continuation of the inflationary recession was impossible.

Time after weary time, it is the mainstream and Keynesian economists (who ridicule and ignore Austrian economics as unscientific) whose predictions are utterly refuted by the events of history. Yet they continue to propound their eternal nonsense and use government coercion to force their bankrupt ideology on everyone else. As Paul Feyerabend said, "I have no objection to incompetence but I do object when incompetence is accompanied by boredom and self-righteousness."

I would also add that I object when incompetence, boredom, and self-righteousness are accompanied by government coercion. But that is a digression.

What I mean to insist on here is that Keynesian economists, who claim to be empirical scientists, ought to abandon their theory. The entire history of civilization stands as a monumental falsification of it. Or please, at the very least, stop degrading the good name of empirical science with such rubbish."

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário