35
eltzer: On Key1yes's General Theory
explain involuntary unemployment andcannot do so without violating its postu-lates. Chapter
1
takes less than a page toname the classical theorists and to stateKeynes's theme.
"I
shall argue that thepostulates of the classical theory are appli-cable to a special case
. . .
the situationwhich it assumes being a
limiting point
of the possible positions of
equilibrium"
(1936, p. 3, italics added). Chapter 2 leavesno doubt about the postulate Keynes hasin mind. "We need to throw over the sec-ond postulate of the classical doctrine andto work out the behavior of a system inwhich involuntary unemployment in thestrict sense is possible" (1936, pp. 16-17).The classical theory, according to Keynes'schapter 2, depends on three assumptions:
(1)
equality of the marginal disutility ofemployment and the real wage; (2) theabsence of
involuntary unemployment;
and (3) the aggregate demand price andaggregate supply price being equal at alllevels of output and employment. "Thesethree assumptions, however, all amountto the same thing
. . .
any one of themlogically involving the other two" (1936,p. 22, italics added).What I take to be key words-limitingpoint, equilibrium, and involuntary unem-ployment-are in italics. The problem ininterpreting the
General Theory
is to
un-
derstand what Keynes meant by thesewords.Keynes believed that the notion of in-voluntary unemployment, the descriptionof the classical theory as a special case-a limiting position of equilibrium that theeconomic system does not generallyreach--and the policy recommendationsthat he made are linked by a consistentframework. The equilibrium level of em-ployment does not rise and the equilib-rium rate of interest and money wage donot fall to the values consistent with fullemployment equilibrium. The
GeneralTheory
is Keynes's attempt to explain whythis is so and to offer a remedy.Gottfried Habeler offered Keynes somecommon, current, explanations of wagerigidity and unemployment; Keynes didnot accept either. Haberler asked: "Wouldyou agree that an equilibrium with invol-untary unemployment is incompatiblewith perfect competition in the labor mar-ket? If
. . .
competition there were per-fect, money wages would fall all the timeso long as unemployment existed.
. . .
Ifthat could be agreed upon.
. .
most classi-cal economists would agree with you, be-cause nobody denies that unemploymentcan persist, if money wages are rigid"UMK, 29, 1979, p. 272).lKeynes replied that although any in-crease of money, in wage units, is a com-pensatory factor, "it does not follow thatinvoluntary unemployment
. . .
can beavoided by increasing the quantity ofmoney indehitely, keeping money wagesunchanged. If classical economists have al-ways meant that a sufficient increase ofmoney in terms of wage units would bea compensatory element, well and good.
. .
.
I
have always understood that theyfavored a reduction ip money wages be-cause they believed that this would havea direct effect on profits, and not onewhich operated indirectly through therate of interest" (29, pp. 272-73).A year earlier, in correspondence withBertil Ohlin, Keynes rejected the idea ofmonopoly elements in the labor market.Ohlin accused Keynes of not freeing him-self, fully, from conventional assumptionsby assuming perfect competition in thelabor market (14, p. 196). Keynes repliedthat the "reference to imperfect competi-tion is very perplexing. I cannot see howon earth it comes in. Mrs. Robinson,
I
maymention, read my proof without discover-ing any connection" (14, p. 190).At about the same time, Keynes, in aletter to Hicks, commenting on Hicks's
I
follow the convention of citing Keynes's papers
as
JMK
followed by the volume and page, or by
indi-
cating only volume and page numbers.
Leave a Comment