If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three.’ As Winston Churchill noted, economists rarely agree on anything. And the topic of Christmas should be no different. Here is our guide to the macroeconomics of Christmas:
Keynesians – place a lot of emphasis on the ‘macro stabilization’ properties of Christmas. Ideally, they would vary the number of Christmases each year according to the state of the economy. This is best summarized by Paul Krugman’s depression paper ‘Wish it could be Christmas every day’, in which he also acknowledges his love of British glam rock. The Keynesians would like to see a larger role for the state, including publically-funded Santas.
Austrians – Believe Christmas is dangerous because it inevitably ends with a nasty January hangover. Also worry about the moral hazard implications of gift-giving and the propensity for overinvestment in Christmas decorations. Reject the idea of ‘public’ holidays, arguing the free market would lead to a better outcome.
Monetarists – Convinced they are the only ones who know how Christmas ‘really works’ and quickly become frustrated with other economists’ lack of understanding. Their thinking can be reduced to a simple identity, though this is vulnerable to shifts in the velocity of Santa’s circulation. Hardcore monetarists believe in the tight control of chocolate coins to prevent the hyper-inflation of waist lines and the hyper-activity of small children. (more…)
John Maynard Keynes was not only a renowned economist, he was an investor. He managed his own money as well as that of King’s College, his friends and family, and insurance companies. As John C. Bogle writes in his introduction to the book, “His spectacular success showed not only his passion for making money, but his growing aversion to losing it. As someone who had gained two fortunes through his trading prowess and lost them through his hubris, Keynes is a stellar example of how an investor can learn, fall on his face more than once, and still come out ahead.” (p. xxxiv)