I believe that Keynes was completely in the right as the concept of full employment would mean actively neglecting involuntary unemployment, which was the reality of thousands globally. This, though seemingly a very obvious observation, was not so obvious during his time. There exist millions of workers who are prepared to work at a given wage rate and even below it, but fail to find work, often due to changes in the business cycle. The capitalist structure of society is characterized by such involuntary unemployment, which the classicists conveniently and completely ignored.
Out of all the contributions Keynes has made in the field of Economics, his interventionist approach is probably the one I most agree with. According to Keynes, economies don't stabilize themselves very quickly and require active state intervention to boost short-term demand. Wages and employment too, are slow in their response to the needs of the market, requiring government intervention to keep them on track. I firmly believe that interventionist policies are a massive improvement from the classical inclination to a laissez-faire stance. Such a "leave-it-alone" mentality can be downright harmful for the economy, as absolute autonomy can lead to chaos and mayhem, with private interests taking precedence over overall societal welfare. It also invariably widens the chasms of income inequality. Without government intervention, monopoly power would freely reign and such intervention can regulate markets to function more effectively, as well as cater to public and economic
Comments
Post a Comment