In the passage pasted belown, Brad describes as one of his "most favorite
pieces of the book" -- and incidently the source of its title -- a "biting
denunciation" of William Greider for being someone "whose thought is thus
shaped by implicit, unexamined theories of which he is not
conscious."
Ironically (and ironic is too mild a term for it), the position
from which Krugman criticizes Greider is itself based on an _implicit,
unexamined theory of which he is not conscious_. That accidental theory
holds that increasing the volume of trade is the only and certain way
to expand employment (and, by implication, raise wages).
BUT WAIT! Krugman's own "accidental theory" has a name. And I'm sure he's
heard of it. I know Brad has. It is the wages-fund theory of classical
political economy -- sometimes referred to as the *discredited* wages-fund
doctrin. So Krugman beats Greider over the head with a defunct doctrine
and Brad applauds.
This indeed reminds one of Keynes. To be exact, it reminds one of Brad's
"most favorite" Keynes quote:
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any
intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few
years back..."
Brad and I had a brief exchange about the wages-fund theory a while back
and I quote his characterization of it: "Yep. But it remains alive, a
standard move in the rhetoric of reaction to use against demands that the
government do something to make the economy behave better..." Putting two
and two together, then, one of Brad's most favorite pieces of Krugman is
when he employs a standard move in the rhetoric of reaction. Hmmmm.
But just to carp on this theme a few moments longer, I shudder to mention
that Krugman's allegation against Greider (and it is _only_ an
allegation -- a speculation really about how his thought has been
"shaped") is that he, Greider, is making a static assumption, ultimately
based on what was once called (Wilson, 1871), a "Unionist reading
of the wages-fund theory".
I asked Brad some time ago just when it was that workers, trade unions and
social democratic politicians (not to mention populist
muckrakers) enthusiastically but implicitly embraced the reactionary
doctrine of the wages-fund theory. He replied:
"that I do not know. Let me hunt around and see if I can find
anything. . ." Brad didn't get back to me on that.
But my most favorite pieces of the book of all are three passages that
go to the heart of Krugman's commitments--both moral and intellectual.
The first is a biting denunciation of William Greider for being an
"accidental" theorist: someone who does not think issues through, but
who just looks at surfaces without peering into depths or thinking
coherently and whose thought is thus shaped by implicit, unexamined
theories of which he is not conscious:
...reducing the number of workers it takes to make [manufactures]
reduces the number of jobs in the [manufactures] sector but creates
an equal number in the [services] sector, and vice versa. Of
course, you would never learn that from talking to [manufacturing]
producers, no matter how many countries you visit; you might not
even learn it from talking to [services] manufacturers. It is an
insight that you can gain only... by engaging in [economic] thought
experiments.
I think I know what people like Greider would answer: that while I
am talking mere theory, their arguments are based on the evidence.
The fact, however, is that the U.S. economy has added 45 million
jobs over the past 25 years.... Greider's view, if I understand it,
is that this is just a reprieve--that any day now the whole economy
will start looking like a steel industry. But this is a purely
theoretical prediction. And such theorizing is all the more
speculative and simplistic because he is an accidental theorist, a
theorist despite himself."
Temps Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
