You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Keynesian Economics’ tag.
The lesson of 1970s stagflation was not that governments can do nothing. It was that the people running policy understood less than they claimed, and that the tools they trusted were much cruder than advertised. The “Great Inflation” from roughly 1965 to 1982 forced economists and central banks to rethink how inflation, unemployment, and monetary policy actually interact. (Federal Reserve History)
For a time, the postwar consensus rested on a flattering idea. Inflation and unemployment were treated as a manageable trade-off. The Phillips Curve was not just read as a pattern in the data. In practice, it became a governing intuition: if unemployment rose, policymakers could push demand higher and accept somewhat more inflation as the cost. That was the real temptation. A relationship observed under one set of conditions was quietly promoted into an instrument of control. The curve stopped being a caution and became a dashboard. That is where the error entered. As later critiques made clear, any apparent trade-off could break down once expectations adjusted. (Federal Reserve History)
Then the 1970s arrived and the trade-off stopped behaving.
Inflation rose sharply while unemployment also remained painfully high. BLS historical CPI data show annual U.S. inflation at 11.0 percent in 1974, 11.3 percent in 1979, and 13.5 percent in 1980. Federal Reserve History identifies this whole era as the defining macroeconomic crisis of the late twentieth century precisely because it combined persistent inflation with serious economic weakness and forced a rethink of earlier policy assumptions. The old promise had implied that these pressures could be balanced against each other. Instead they arrived together. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
It is tempting to tell that story too neatly. Some people reduce stagflation to one cause, usually Nixon’s August 1971 suspension of dollar convertibility into gold. That was a major monetary break, and it helped bring the Bretton Woods system to an end. But it was not the whole story. Nixon’s package also included wage and price controls, and the wider period was shaped by multiple interacting forces, including oil shocks and broader inflation dynamics. The point of that complexity is not to rescue the old confidence. It is to bury it. An economy shaped by that many moving parts was never going to be managed with the precision implied by mid-century technocratic rhetoric. (Federal Reserve History)
This is where some critics of monetary manipulation look stronger in retrospect than they did at the time. Austrian economists such as Mises and Hayek had long warned that money and credit are not harmless policy tools. Cheap credit can distort investment. Monetary expansion can scramble price signals. Artificial booms can end in painful correction. There is no need to pretend they possessed a complete script for every feature of 1970s macroeconomics. They did not. But they were directionally right about something central: when policymakers treat money as an instrument of short-run management rather than a framework for stable coordination, they increase the odds of disorder. That warning aged better than the promise of fine-tuning. This is an interpretive judgment, but it is supported by how badly the simpler policy reading of the Phillips Curve fared during the Great Inflation. (Federal Reserve History)
Paul Volcker’s anti-inflation campaign in the early 1980s drove the point home in brutal form. The Federal Reserve’s October 1979 shift to tighter anti-inflation policy helped bring inflation down, but the price of restoring credibility was severe. Federal Reserve History notes that inflation fell sharply after its 1980 peak, while unemployment reached 10.8 percent in late 1982 during the deep 1981–82 recession. That was not the triumph of elegant expert control. It was the bill arriving. Once inflationary disorder hardens, the correction is rarely gentle. (Federal Reserve History)
So what did stagflation actually kill?
Not economics. Not all state action. Not even every Keynesian insight. What it killed was a style of elite confidence. It killed the belief that national economies can be fine-tuned with enough intelligence, enough models, and enough institutional nerve. It killed the conceit that the dashboard is the machine. The language has changed since then. The models are more sophisticated. The temptation is still with us. Every generation of managers wants to believe that this time the controls are better and the uncertainties smaller. The 1970s remain useful because they remind us that policy operates under limits, trade-offs turn ugly, and reality does not care how elegant the model looked on paper. (Federal Reserve History)

Glossary
Phillips Curve
A model associated with a short-run relationship between inflation and unemployment. In practice, many policymakers treated it as if lower unemployment could be purchased with somewhat higher inflation. The 1970s badly damaged confidence in that simple reading. (Federal Reserve History)
Stagflation
A period of high inflation combined with weak growth and high unemployment. The 1970s made the term famous because that combination was supposed to be difficult to sustain under older policy assumptions. (Federal Reserve History)
Fiat money
Money that is not redeemable for a commodity such as gold and instead depends on legal and institutional backing. Nixon’s 1971 decision ended dollar convertibility into gold for foreign governments and central banks. (Federal Reserve History)
Bretton Woods system
The postwar international monetary order in which other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar, and the dollar was convertible into gold under the system’s rules. It unraveled in the early 1970s. (Federal Reserve History)
Disinflation
A slowing in the rate of inflation. Prices may still be rising, but less quickly than before. Volcker’s early-1980s policy is a classic U.S. example. (Federal Reserve History)
References / URLs
Federal Reserve History, “The Great Inflation”
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
Federal Reserve History, “Nixon Ends Convertibility of U.S. Dollars to Gold and Announces Wage/Price Controls”
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends
Federal Reserve History, “Volcker’s Announcement of Anti-Inflation Measures”
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/anti-inflation-measures
Federal Reserve History, “Recession of 1981–82”
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession-of-1981-82
Federal Reserve History, “Creation of the Bretton Woods System”
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/bretton-woods-created
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical CPI-U, 1913–2023
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202312.pdf
Times are tough, we are in a economic downturn. Solution: Lower Taxes.
Times are great, we are in an economic upturn. Solution: Lower Taxes.

This from our level headed and supposedly fully rational Canadian minister of Finance.
“It has become obvious that Canada was well prepared for the crisis that hit us a year ago — paying down debt in good times, maintaining a prudent financial system and reducing taxes as the U.S. entered into recession in early 2008, to provide both a short-term gain and a long-term advantage,” Flaherty said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Brampton, Ont., Board of Trade.”
What the hell Jim? Is Keynesian Economic Theory a bit of a stretch for you? Or is it something else?
From the budget brought down by Jimbo Flaherty and his Neo-Conservative party.
“Corporate taxes will also be cut — by $14.1 billion over the next five years.
The corporate income tax rate drops by an additional percentage point to 19.5 per cent in 2008, falling in steps to 15 per cent by 2012. By that time, Canada will have the lowest corporate tax rate among the major industrialized economies, the government said.”
It is simply ludicrous. The government needs to raise taxes when times are good so it has the room to cut taxes when times are bad. The current Canadian Government has had but one solution on the issue of taxes: Cut, Cut, Cut, and then cut some more. That friends, is retarded. I mean sure, we all love our tax breaks, but defunding the government so it must cut valuable social services amazingly short sighted.
The business cycle must be regulated by the government for the benefit of the people of Canada. Unfortunately that means tax increasing during the good times, get over it tax-whiners, as it is necessary.


Your opinions…