凯恩斯和哈耶克

1

世界市场行情作业

论文

凯恩斯和哈耶克：伟大的辩论进行中

作者：09国贸 第三组

成员：冯荣 郭一波 范英杰 杨辉 肖飞龙 胡炜 张凌通 何若瑜 熊耕野 黄皓成 廖洵

2

凯恩斯和哈耶克：伟大的辩论进行中

提要

本文通过对比凯恩斯与哈耶克的理论特点及主要经济理论，剖析了二者对中国经济的影响。

当今关于什么样的政策可以使美国经济复苏的争论仿佛在重复着1930年经济大萧条时的争论。谢谢Northwood大学经济系教授Richard Ebeling提供的当年在《伦敦时报》上刊登的信件，我们有很好很准确的证据来证明经济理论的双方在这两次大萧条中争论的相似性。

On Oct. 17, 1932, theTimes published a lengthy letter from John Maynard Keynes and five other academic economists. Keynes, et al. (Keynes for short), made the case for spending — of any kind, private or public, whether on consumption or investment.

1932年10月17日，《时报》刊登了来自凯恩斯和其他五位经济学家给公众的很长的一封信。他们在信上说明了无论是来自私营的或是政府的，无论是用来消费还是投资，花费都是非常重要的。

\economy\was the culprit that impeded a return to prosperity. If a person decides to save, there is no assurance that the funds \investment in new capital construction by public or private concerns.\They cite a \investment. Accordingly, \point towards private economy; to spend less money than we should like to do is not patriotic.\private thrift.

私有经济的泛滥被指控为经济复苏缓慢的罪魁祸首。原因是如果决定留给个人，那么如果他决定把钱存起来，这些钱很有可能最后不会再用于对整个经济都有利的新的资本投资之中。对市场经济缺乏信心是不愿意投资的主要原因。因此，在当时的情况下，私有经济不符合大众的利益；花的钱比自己应该消费的少是一种不爱国的行为。所以这些经济学家的结论是我们应该推崇更多的政府消费来防止个人过多的节约行为。

Is all spending equally productive, or should government policies aim to simulate private investment?

政府和私人的消费对经济同等有利还是我们应该更多的推崇政府消费来刺激更多的投资？

The views in this letter came to be known as Keynesian economics. Depressions are caused by a spending deficit, which can be made up by government spending. Keynesian economics (which predates Keynes) is easily identifiable in speeches given by President Obama and his economic team.

3

这些在这封信里所阐述的观点后来被称作凯恩斯经济学。他们认为经济衰退是花销不足造成的。这个不足只有通过政府的加大消费才能补足。我们在当今奥巴马和他的经济顾问的演讲中很容易发现凯恩斯经济学理论（在凯恩斯之前就形成了）的影子。

Two days later, on Oct. 19, 1932, four professors at the University of London responded to the Keynes letter, and one of the signers was Friedrich A. Hayek who more than 50 years later would win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

两天以后，1932年的10月19日，四个来自伦敦大学的教授回复了凯恩斯的信。而其中一位就是哈耶克，这个50年之后的诺贝尔经济学奖获得者。

Hayek, et al. (Hayek for short), identified three areas of contention. First, they correctly identified Keynes's argument about the futility of savings as actually being an argument about what has classically been known as the dangers of hoarding, i.e., the potentially pernicious consequences of an economy-wide increase in the demand for money that is not met by a corresponding increase in the supply of money. \deflationary in its effects. No one thinks that deflation is in itself desirable.\ 哈耶克指出了信中三点值得争论的地方。第一，他们指出凯恩斯所说的存钱的无用性就是传统的“囤积的危险性”的理论。这个理论认为，如果整个经济体对货币的增大需求量没有被相应的增大供应量所满足，那么这将对经济造成很大的危害。大家都认为囤积货币，无论是以钞票的形式还是存款的形式，都会导致经济衰退。而经济衰退是没有人所期望的。

Second, the London professors disputed that it mattered not the form spending took, whether on consumption or investment. They saw a \as peculiarly desirable,\as do today's proponents of supply-side economics. They distinguish between hoarding of money and savings that flows into securities, and reaffirm the importance of the securities markets in transforming savings into investment.

第二，这些伦敦的教授对凯恩斯认为的消费和投资的平等性提出了反驳。他们认为投资更为重要，而他们的理论和今天的供应经济学的观点是一致的。同时，他们指出了单纯的存款和把存款用于金融市场的区别。他们认为金融市场是把存款转为投资的很有用的渠道。

Their third and greatest disagreement with Keynes was over the benefits of government spending financed by deficits. They demurred. \existence of public debt on a large scale imposes frictions and obstacles to readjustment very much greater than the frictions and obstacles imposed by the existence of private debt.\This was not the time for \municipal swimming baths, &c\(Keynes's example). In our contemporary context, no stimulus.

他们和凯恩斯理论的最大分歧是在政府用财政赤字来使经济复苏的理论上。他们认为，大量的政府的债务比起私人的债务会给社会造成更大的摩擦以及对经济的复苏造成更

4

大的阻力。“现在不是给政府官员造新的泳池的时候。”他们的观点用我们今天的现状来说，就是不需要政府出面刺激经济。

Finally, and importantly, they offered a way forward. Governments world-wide, led by the U.S. with the destructive Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, had turned to protectionism and restrictions on capital flows. Hayek argued it was time \abolish those restrictions on trade and the free movement of capital.\ 最后一点是最重要的一点，他们发表了怎样使经济复苏的看法。1930年的Smoot-Hawley关卡使世界各地的政府都推崇贸易上的保护主义和对资金流动的限制。哈耶克认为：“现在是取消这些在贸易上的限制和使资金重新自由流动的时候。”

In short, they argued that the cure for the Great Depression was a reinvigorated international global trading system. The world economy has not turned to

protectionism this time, but efforts at expanding global trade have flagged. As Allan Meltzer, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, recently reminded readers of this page (Why Obamanomics Has Failed, June 30), only expanded trade can enable us to pay off the public debt that burdens the economy. 总的来说，他们认为一个重新建立起来的繁荣的世界贸易系统是医治经济衰退的良药。现在世界的经济没有完全倾向于保护主义，但是我们已经减弱了对自由贸易的推崇和加强。就像Carnegie Mellon大学经济教授Allan Meltzer最近说的那样,我们只有使自由贸易不断扩大才能缓解我们的政府赤字。

Prof. Ebeling's rediscovery of these letters has unleashed a torrent of comments on blog sites. As New York University economist Mario Rizzo put it, \debate is still Keynes versus Hayek. All else is footnote.\Economists have clothed the debate with ever greater mathematical complexity, but the underlying issues remain the same.

Ebeling教授对这些1930年信件的发现引发了很多在博客上的讨论。就像New York大学经济学家Mario Rizzo说的，“现在关于经济学理论的争辩还是凯恩斯和哈耶克。其他的只是他们理论的脚注罢了。现在经济学家已经能够用更高深的数学计算来支撑他们的理论争辩，但他们分歧的本质还是当年凯恩斯和哈耶克的争论。

Gerald P. O'Driscollis a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He formerly served as vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. With Mario J. Rizzo, he is co-author of The Economics of Time and Ignorance(Routledge, 1996). 注：Gerald P. O'Driscoll是美国Cato研究所的资深研究员。他曾经是美联储Dallas分部的副主席。他在1996年和Mario J. Rizzo一起出版了The Economiccs of Time and Ignorance一书。