论文部分内容阅读
作者认为,把马尔萨斯说成是凯恩斯先驱者的论点是可以商榷的。凯恩斯与古典派的重要差别之一在于对储蓄—投资机构有不同假定。从根本上来说,古典派和新古典派经济学是“储蓄必被花用”理论,而这显然是与凯恩斯理论尖锐对立的。作者说,马尔萨斯的主要论点是“过度的”资本积累将导致利润率的下降。不幸的是,在经典的古典派理论结构中,下降的利润率并不一定是一个扰乱均衡的因素。利率(现实表明它主要决定于利润率)使储蓄与投资趋于平衡,从而利率的变化仅仅改变总支出在消费与投资间的分配比例。作者在考察马尔萨斯关于政策的观点时,指出马尔萨斯与凯恩斯相同之处远较一般人所设想者为少。在凯恩斯《通论》的结构中,削减工资对增加就业量的直接效果是零;反之,马尔萨斯认为,通过削减工资可以最后实现充分就业。凯恩斯认为,一个不加控制的资本主义经济,充分就业仅是偶然现象,因此以生产出最大值的产品为目的,政府控制总储蓄和总投资是必需的。马尔萨斯则不然,自由放任是他的指导原则。
In the author’s opinion, the argument that Malthus is a Keynesian pioneer is open to question. One of the important differences between Keynes and the classical school lies in the different assumptions made about savings-investment institutions. Fundamentally, classical and neoclassical economics is a theory that “savings must be spent”, which is clearly sharply opposed to Keynesian theory. The author states that Malthus’s main thesis is that “excessive” capital accumulation will lead to a drop in profit margins. Unfortunately, in the classical classicalist structure, the declining rate of profit is not necessarily a factor that disturbs the equilibrium. The interest rate, which shows that it is mainly determined by the rate of profit, tends to balance saving with investment, so that the change in the interest rate changes only the distribution of total expenditure between consumption and investment. In examining the Malthusian perspective on policy, the author points out that Malthus and Keynesia share far fewer than most people think of. In Keynes’s “generalist” structure, the direct effect of wage cuts on increasing employment is zero; on the contrary, Malthus believes that the full employment can be finally realized through wage reductions. Keynes argued that an uncontrolled capitalist economy and full employment were mere contingencies, so the government’s control of total savings and total investment was necessary for the purpose of producing the largest product. Malthus is not, laissez-faire is his guiding principle.