Hansen came late to Keynesianism, but like many other converted economists --- Hicks, Harrod, etc., with Keynesian tactic blessing, who seemed to have felt that any endorsement was better than an explicit rejection --- he reframed Keynes to fit his prior views rather nicely. My totally uninformed guess is that Hansen was probably influenced by Schumpeter's idealist-Hegelian reading of Marx.
Anyway, if you listen to Summers, it's clear that Krugman is right linking his views to Hansen. Whatever we may make out of this, it doesn't seem like Kalecki or Sweezy to me.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
> "I'm not sure that fits Krugman exactly. Summers, yes, no doubt, but
> Krugman seems more open to political explanation. Christ, he was
> quoting Kalecki on the risks of full employment just a few months
> ago."
>
> Right, and he was also --- in a recent lecture (video posted somewhere
> on the web) --- making the argument that (my words) EU austerity is
> not inexorable, but a strategic choice aimed at weakening workers,
> undermine their social conquests, etc. I'm not a knee-jerk
> anti-Krugman. That's why I'm mystified by his sudden endorsement of
> Summers' "secular stagnation" theory.
>
> Check out Summers' speech (it starts at 45'):
>
> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid2816849869001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAACofWkTk~,d-cWVfCeeBFD0mJnTa0KQjzdh26lEmOv&bclid=2816973566001&bctid=2821294542001
>
> What I got was:
>
> 1. Before the financial panic, aggregate spending was not stressing
> capacity utilization or lowering unemployment to levels threatening to
> trigger accelerating inflation.
>
> 2. After the financial panic, in spite of the acceptable response by
> the Fed and government, in spite of the banks being nicely rescued,
> the private sector didn't increase spending as one would expect.
>
> 3. It is not a uniquely U.S. phenomenon, but common to rich capitalist
> societies.
>
> 4. R&R are right about financial crisis being deeper traumas and/or
> the demographic/technological/institutional parameters of rich
> capitalism have shifted; in other words, the Wicksellian "natural"
> interest rate (the one consistent with the exogenous parameters of the
> economy: demographics, technology, culture) has dropped to negative
> territory: "secular stagnation."
>
> 5. As far as policy is concerned: Monetary policy can help stop the
> bleeding, restore some financial normalcy, but it cannot affect the
> Wicksellian "natural rate of interest," lift it up to levels that
> would make the private sector make up for the spending gap.
>
> Here's my reply: So what? What kind of Keynesians are you if you are
> now believing that you have to tail rather than lead the private
> sector?
>
> By the way, in the Q&A part, Bernanke noted in passing that the crisis
> --- not being anything like the destruction of the country's
> productive wealth by some natural resource, but being instead a
> human-made disaster --- called for other (non-austerity) measures.
>
> It seems to me that they would love to wash their hands and pass the
> buck. Bernanke, in spite of the Fed's official mandate, told Congress
> it was mainly up to fiscal policy to deal with the recessionary gap.
> If he didn't think the law granted him the tools to accomplish the
> Fed's mission, why didn't he ask for expanded powers? Or, if Congress
> refused, why didn't he resign in protest?
>
> They make noises, but they do neither name names nor take actions
> showing they are serious about their noises. Capitalism, the inherent
> tendencies of the system, can always be used as the place where the
> buck ultimately stops.