Gottfried Haberler · 1944
Gottfried Haberler’s journal book review examines Nathan’s popular presentation of the Keynes–Hansen theory of oversaving and challenges its adequacy as a guide to postwar economic policy. His objection is not that government action to maintain demand is inherently illegitimate, but that Nathan presents one diagnosis and its remedies with insufficient attention to competing explanations, structural difficulties, and inflation. The review moves from an account of Nathan’s program to its analytical omissions, then considers the consequences of oversimplification for public understanding and future policy.
Nathan, as Haberler presents him, believes that free enterprise can function successfully if government reduces private saving, stimulates private investment, and closes the remaining demand gap through public spending. Taxation, social security, and capital exports form part of this program. Haberler locates its governing abstraction precisely:
The argument runs entirely in broad aggregates—effective demand, saving and investment.
The word “entirely” carries the criticism. Aggregate analysis offers Nathan a straightforward diagnosis and an optimistic therapy, but leaves little room for problems that cannot be resolved simply by increasing total demand. Haberler accepts that a popular exposition cannot accommodate every theoretical intricacy. He nevertheless distinguishes necessary simplification from the exclusion of essential questions: alternative explanations of depression, wage and price rigidity, labor mobility, interest rates, and the responsiveness of investment to interest are all absent or inadequately treated.
The review’s principal counterexample comes from Pigou’s discussion of postwar resource maldistribution. Unemployment concentrated in particular depressed areas differs from the general unemployment of the early 1930s. This distinction challenges the assumption that the next economic emergency will reproduce the conditions for which Nathan’s remedies were designed. Summarizing Pigou’s conclusion, Haberler writes:
He drew the conclusion that the area covered by policies which confine themselves to regulating aggregate effective demand is much more restricted than the proponents of these policies believe.
Haberler thus separates the management of aggregate demand from the adjustment of resources across places and uses. Prosperity in the aggregate need not remove localized unemployment. His analogy with military strategists prepared for a different war sharpens this point: economists may possess answers suited to the depression of the 1930s while lacking answers to the particular difficulties of the later 1940s and 1950s. The argument concerns the fit between diagnosis and circumstances, rather than the universal rejection of a policy instrument.
Nathan’s defense, quoted within the review, is that many specialized economic problems will diminish under full employment, while those that remain will be easier to handle under prosperous conditions. Haberler grants the valid element of this claim:
The author is certainly right that partial depressions and other special ills can be more easily dealt with, if a general deflationary spiral is not permitted to develop.
That concession establishes the limits of his disagreement. Preventing cumulative deflation can improve the conditions for addressing particular economic troubles; it does not establish that those troubles are secondary or safely omitted. Haberler argues that Nathan could have replaced repetitions with a more rounded analysis. Popular accessibility, in this account, requires preserving the qualifications necessary for sound judgment.
The closing paragraphs connect analytical simplification to political risk. Nathan’s book might reassure readers already receptive to demand management, but Haberler doubts that it will persuade thoughtful skeptics of government spending and social security. More importantly, if postwar difficulties arise from causes other than oversaving, the proposed remedies may prove ineffective or inflationary. Inflation could require continued or renewed price controls, rationing, and allocation. Such consequences would discredit demand-management policies and make them harder to apply when genuinely needed. The review’s enduring relevance lies in this warning: defending a useful policy by presenting it as an uncomplicated general cure can undermine both economic judgment and the policy’s future credibility.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian