All increases in voluntary saving exert a particularly important, immediate effect on the level of real wages. Chart V-2 shows how the monetary demand for consumer goods falls by one-fourth (from 100 m.u. to 75 m.u.), due to the rise in saving. Hence it is easy to understand why increases in saving are generally followed by decreases in the prices of final consumer goods.* If, as generally occurs, the wages or rents of the original factor labor are initially held constant in nominal terms, a decline in the prices of final consumer goods will be followed by a rise in the real wages of workers employed in all stages of the productive structure. With the same money income in nominal terms, workers will be able to acquire a greater quantity and quality of final consumer goods and services at consumer goods’ new, more reduced prices.
This increase in real wages, which arises from the growth in voluntary saving, means that, relatively speaking, it is in the interest of entrepreneurs of all stages in the production process to replace labor with capital goods. To put it another way, via an increase in real wages, the rise in voluntary saving sets a trend throughout the economic system toward longer and more capital-intensive productive stages. In other words, entrepreneurs now find it more attractive to use, relatively speaking, more capital goods than labor. This constitutes a third powerful, additional effect tending toward the lengthening of the stages in the productive structure. It adds to and overlaps the other two effects mentioned previously.
The first to explicitly refer to this third effect was David Ricardo. He did so in his book, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, the first edition of which was published in 1817. Here Ricardo concludes that
[e]very rise of wages, therefore, or, which is the same thing, every fall of profits, would lower the relative value of those commodities which were produced with a capital of a durable nature, and would proportionally elevate those which were produced with capital more perishable. A fall of wages would have precisely the contrary effect.**
In the well-known appendix “On Machinery,” which was added in the third edition, published in 1821, Ricardo concludes that “[m]achinery and labour are in constant competition, and the former can frequently not be employed until labour rises.”***
The same idea was later recovered by F.A. Hayek, who, beginning in 1939, applied it extensively in his writings on business cycles. Here we will for the first time use it, integrated with the prior two effects, to explain the consequences an upsurge in voluntary saving has on the productive structure and to detract from theories on the so-called “paradox of thrift” and the supposedly negative influence of saving on effective demand. Hayek offers a very concise explanation of the “Ricardo Effect” when he states that
[w]ith high real wages and a low rate of profit investment will take highly capitalistic forms: entrepreneurs will try to meet the high costs of labour by introducing very labour-saving machinery—the kind of machinery which it will be profitable to use only at a very low rate of profit and interest.****
Hence the “Ricardo Effect” is a third microeconomic explanation for the behavior of entrepreneurs, who react to an upsurge in voluntary saving by boosting their demand for capital goods and by investing in new stages further from final consumption.
It is important to remember that all increases in voluntary saving and investment initially bring about a decline in the production of new consumer goods and services with respect to the short-term maximum which could be achieved if inputs were not diverted from the stages closest to final consumption. This decline performs the function of freeing productive factors necessary to lengthen the stages of capital goods furthest from consumption.*****Furthermore the consumer goods and services left unsold as a result of the rise in voluntary saving play a role remarkably similar to that of the accumulated berries in
our Robinson Crusoe example. The berries permitted Crusoe to sustain himself for the number of days required to produce his capital equipment (the wooden stick); during this time period he was not able to devote himself to picking berries “by hand.” In a modern economy, consumer goods and services which remain unsold when saving increases fulfill the important function of making it possible for the different economic agents (workers, owners of natural resources and capitalists) to sustain themselves during the time periods that follow. During these periods the recently-initiated lengthening of the productive structure causes an inevitable slowdown in the arrival of new consumer goods and services to the market. This “slowdown” lasts until the completion of all of the new, more capital-intensive processes that have been started. If it were not for the consumer goods and services that remain unsold due to saving, the temporary drop in the supply of new consumer goods would trigger a substantial rise in the relative price of these goods and considerable difficulties in the provision of them.******
*As Hayek indicates, these reductions in prices may take some time, depending upon the rigidity of each market, and at any rate, they will be less than proportional to the fall in demand that accompanies saving. If this were not the case, saving would not entail any actual sacrifice and the stock of consumer goods necessary to sustain economic agents while more capital-intensive processes are completed would not be left unsold. See F.A. Hayek, “Reflections on the Pure Theory of Money of Mr. J.M. Keynes (continued),” Economica 12, no. 35 (February 1932): 22–44, republished in The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, vol. 9: Contra Keynes and Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence, Bruce Caldwell, ed. (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 179–80.
**See David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. 1: On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Piero Sraffa and M.H. Dobb, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 39–40.
****See Hayek, “Profits, Interest and Investment” and Other Essays on the Theory of Industrial Fluctuations, p. 39. Shortly afterward, in 1941, F.A. Hayek briefly touched on this effect in relation to the impact an increase in voluntary saving exerts on the productive structure, though he did not expressly quote Ricardo. This is the only instance we know of in which the “Ricardo Effect” is directly applied to an analysis of the consequences of a rise in voluntary saving, and not to the role the effect plays in the different phases of the business cycle, theorists’ predominant concern up until now. The excerpt in question is found on p. 293 of The Pure Theory of Capital (London: Macmillan, 1941), and successively reprinted thereafter (we quote from the 1976 Routledge reprint). It reads as follows: “The fall in the rate of interest may . . . drive up the price of labour to such an extent as to enforce an extensive substitution of machinery for labour.” Hayek later returned to the topic in his article, “The Ricardo Effect,” published in Economica 34, no. 9 (May 1942): 127–52, and republished as chapter 11 of Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 220–54. Thirty years later he dealt with it again in his article, “Three Elucidations of the Ricardo Effect,” published in the Journal of Political Economy 77, no. 2 (1979), and reprinted as chapter 11 of the book New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), pp. 165–78. Mark Blaug recently admitted that his criticism of the “Ricardo Effect” in his book, Economic Theory in Retrospect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 571–77, was based on an error in interpretation regarding the supposedly static nature of Hayek’s analysis. See Mark Blaug’s article entitled “Hayek Revisited,” published in Critical Review 7, no. 1 (Winter, 1993): 51–60, and esp. note 5 on pp. 59–60. Blaug acknowledges that he discovered his error thanks to an article by Laurence S. Moss and Karen I. Vaughn, “Hayek’s Ricardo Effect: A Second Look,” History of Political Economy 18, no. 4 (Winter, 1986): 545–65. For his part, Mises (Human Action, pp. 773–77) has criticized the emphasis placed on the Ricardo Effect in order to justify a forced increase in wages through union or government channels with the purpose of raising investment in capital goods. He concludes that such a policy only gives rise to unemployment and a poor allocation of resources in the productive structure, since the policy does not stem from an increase in society’s voluntary saving, but rather from the simple coercive imposition of artificially high wages. Rothbard expresses a similar view in Man, Economy, and State (pp. 631–32). Hayek does so as well in The Pure Theory of Capital (p. 347), where he concludes that dictatorially- imposed growth in wages produces not only a rise in unemployment and a fall in saving, but also generalized consumption of capital combined with an artificial lengthening and narrowing of the stages in the productive structure.
*****See Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital, p. 256.
******In the words of Hayek himself: All that happens is that at the earlier date the savers consume less than they obtain from current production, and at the later date (when current production of consumers’ goods has decreased and additional capital goods are turned out . . .) they are able to consume more consumers’ goods than they get from current production. (Hayek, The Pure Theory of Capital, p. 275.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário