Lawrence Klein: Keynesian Economist Who Wanted to Sidestep the Constitution

By Richard M. Ebeling

Nobel Prizing-winning Keynesian economist, Lawrence Klein died on October 20, 2013, at the age of 93. A long-time professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1980 for his development of econometric (or statistical) models of the United States “macro” economy for purposes of prediction and “activist” government policy making.


He also was a senior economic advisor to Jimmy Carter during his successful run for the presidency in 1976, but Klein declined a position in the Carter Administration for fear of the negative publicity from his membership in the American Communist Party in the 1930s. 


What is less well known today is that immediately after World War II he was one of the great popularizers of the “new economics” of John Maynard Keynes, especially in his widely read book, The Keynesian Revolution, published in 1947.


Keynes’ Conception of Government as Savior

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) Keynes had argued that the market economy was inherently unstable and susceptible to wide and unpredictable swings in output, employment, and prices. Worse yet, he asserted, the market could get stuck in a prolonged period of high unemployment and idle resources. Only judicious government monetary and fiscal policy could assure a return to sustainable full employment.


In the decade following publication of The General Theory Keynes’ ideas captured the hearts and minds of a growing number of economists. His book was soon translated into a variety of foreign languages, including German; that edition appeared in the autumn of 1936. Addressing himself to the Nazi economists of Hitler’s Germany in the preface to the German-language edition, Keynes declared that his theory of “aggregate demand” management by government was more easily adapted to a totalitarian economy than a relatively free-market system:


“The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than . . . under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire . . . Although I have, after all, worked it out with a view to the conditions prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon countries where a large degree of laissez-faire still prevails, nevertheless it remains applicable to situations in which state management is more pronounced.”


While it would be wrong to suggest that Keynes had any direct sympathy for totalitarianism or the Nazi system, he understood clearer than many of his followers that the more the government controlled the economy the easier it would be to implement what soon became known as Keynesian-style policies.


Klein’s The Keynesian Revolution represented the growing consensus of the time among economists and government-policy advocates on how monetary and fiscal tools should be used to manipulate the economy. The book was widely assigned to college students in their economics classes, thus further spreading Keynes’ message.


In the final chapter of the book, Klein outlined what would be necessary from government if the Keynesian “insights” were to be fully applied for the “social good.” In a world guided by Keynes’ ideas Americans would have to accept a greater degree of government regimentation than they had in the past. Should they be afraid of this? No, Klein assured his readers: “The regimentation of unemployment and poverty is infinitely more severe than the regimentation of economic planning.” He was sure the American people would “quickly come forth with support” for the required regimentation of economic planning.


Keynesian Control Instead of Constitutional Constraint

The “economic planners” would have to have “complete control over government fiscal policy so that they can spend when and where spending was needed to stimulate employment, and tax when and where taxation was needed to halt inflationary price movements,” he said The traditional congressional budget process would have to be put aside. Klein was sure that “It is inevitable that the Congressional debating techniques will be much too slow and cumbersome to provide the flexibility needed for fiscal policy in a full-employment program.” In its place, Klein said:


“We must have a planning agency always ready with a backlog of socially useful public works to fill any deflationary gap that may arise [through discretionary government deficit-spending powers]; similarly, we must have a price-control board always ready with directives and enforcement officers to wipe out any inflationary gap that may arise . . . Government spending should be very flexible and subject to immediate release or curtailment, in just the precise amount which will maintain full employment, no more and no less.. . . This is the road to the kind of full employment that we need.”


From where would come the money that the government would need for all this fiscal activity? Don’t worry, Klein said, the government could just borrow and borrow and borrow. But would it not have to be paid back? Wasn’t this merely imposing a higher tax burden on the citizenry in the future? We need have no concern, he declared, since, after all, “public debt can never be a burden, because we owe it to ourselves.”


Undermining the Spirit of Self-Responsibility and Savings

At the same time, government would have to keep individuals from saving too much and spending too little, since excessive savings would diminish the “aggregate demand” on which “full employment” was dependent. This would require, Klein said, income redistribution from rich to poor because the rich have a higher (marginal) propensity to save rather than to spend: “Such policies of income redistribution can be carried out by taxing the rich and paying a dole or other types of contributions to the poor.”


To reinforce this objective the motive for personal saving would have to be undermined by the government’s taking greater responsibility for such things as retirement planning. “The people acting on individualistic principles do not know their own best interests,” he said. “They must be taught to look at the system as a whole [in which consumption rather than savings is the “socially” desirable conduct] . . . We must resort to indirect methods such as social-security programs which wipe out the need for savings.”


Once discussing some of the implications of his own ideas, Keynes said that in a world consistent with his policy prescriptions, “customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdoms” would have to be set aside. As Klein clearly showed, this included the American tradition of constitutional government and financial self-responsibility.


The constitutional procedure for congressional approval of taxation and expenditures would have to be eliminated; government economic planners would, instead, have discretionary control over taxing and spending. Taxation would be a redistributive tool for macroeconomic policy manipulation to “stimulate” the economy.


And since individuals “do not know their own best interest,” the Keynesian planners would have to teach people to give up the old “bad” habits of self-reliance and savings, with the state becoming the paternalistic provider.


For the last hundred years constitutionally limited government has been slowly but surely eroded in the United States and around the globe. Governments have grown in discretionary power over the lives and fortunes of the citizenry everywhere we look. Restraints on government have been loosened so those in political authority can do more to the people in the name of “for the people.”


The traditional purpose of constitutions has been to restrain and specify the powers of government. The presumption is that government is the enemy of liberty and prosperity. Unbridled government threatens to enslave the people through controls, regulations, and prohibitions. Unlimited government power to tax and spend undermines the ability of the people to plan their own lives and peacefully interact with their fellow citizens for mutual improvement.


Keynesian economics and popularizers of its policy prescriptions like Lawrence Klein were major contributors to our continuing trend toward larger and ever-more intrusive government. They persuaded more than a generation of students and economists that the free market is untrustworthy of supplying either jobs or justice. They rationalized the need for unbounded political power in the name of economic stability and distributive fairness. They weakened the belief in the importance of constitutional limits on power.


If freedom is to be restored, part of the task will have to be a thorough overthrow of the Keynesian concepts that have been so deeply imbedded into public thinking and government policy-making by people like Lawrence Klein.

9 thoughts on “Lawrence Klein: Keynesian Economist Who Wanted to Sidestep the Constitution

  1. Lawrence Klein’s book The Keynesian Revolution was assigned in my Principles class.when I was in college. It convinced me that I was not a Keynesian.

  2. The first step of the Leftist march through the academy was obviously in the econ departments.

  3. One of the wonderful things about a free society is that the Lawrence Kleins of the world may present their false and malignant views without fear. In the world he desired the Miseses and Hayeks would have been subject to compulsory “re-education.” Surprisingly, this fact does not give his ilk pause.

  4. Keynes’ and Klein’s abstract ideas “captured the hearts and minds of a growing number of economists” because it not only gave them a purpose in life, but strengthened the semi-utopian notion that societal ills could be cured from the top by intellectually superior elites. Academics eagerly spread the word and most college courses in the nation adopted Keynes’s theories as gospel. The fact that these ideas also called for a reduction of saving, and an increase in consumption, with the populace becoming more and more dependent on the government, was a real bonus in the minds of the basically collectivist academics.

    Of course in practice there has been a failure on the part of the central planners to “judiciously manage” the economy, but they have succeeded in making a large portion of the population dependent on government. The harm they have done exagerating the normal boom and bust cycles, and piling up debt, is small when compared to the disastrous effect they have had on eliminating the thrift and self-reliance of the citizenry.

    It is worth noting that the supporters of these harmful theories are generally of the highest intellect and scholarship, with a weakness for abstract theory, and desirous of finding a place in society for themselves far removed from the workplace, where they can dictate their fanciiful economic ideas onto the body politic. Another reason to prefer rulers taken from the first 100 people you meet on the sidewalk over the faculty of Harvard University!

  5. Keynes and Klien and Krugman, the KKK of economics, have perhaps caused more damage to the nation than the Klan did to the South. The formers’ violence is practiced against the truth, but may be as damaging to people as the actual violence of the KKK. For the Klan has long been recognized for what it is and its members for the thugs that they are, while the disastrous-to-real-people policies of Keynesians are perpetrated anew on a daily basis throughout the U.S. without the perps ever being punished.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s