投资、储蓄和融资再审视——20世纪80年代后凯恩斯经济学者之间争论的评述

Reassessment of Investment,Saving and Finance——A Review of the Debate Among Post-Keynesian Economists in the 1980s

本文的思考源于后凯恩斯经济学家阿西马科普洛斯1983年的《卡莱斯基和凯恩斯论融资、投资和储蓄》,这篇文章引发了20世纪80年代后凯恩斯经济理论中最持久的争论之一。20世纪80年代争论的根源要回溯到20世纪30年代的流动性偏好-可贷资金争论,在这一争论中凯恩斯明确指出融资与储蓄无关,反驳了俄林等人信贷供求决定利率的观点。卡莱斯基持有和凯恩斯相同的观点,尽管他们的理论框架不同。在时隔近五十年之后,阿西马科普洛斯的文章重新审视了凯恩斯和卡莱斯基关于投资融资的思考,再次提出融资与储蓄有关,此时后凯恩斯经济学者明确指出问题的关键不是储蓄,而是流动性。尽管阿西马科普洛斯错误地将焦点集中在储蓄而不是流动性上,而且忽视了银行系统的重要性,但他批评中的另外一点是有意义的,即长期利率如何变化。阿西马科普洛斯不认为凯恩斯和卡莱斯基关于利率的直觉观点一定是成立的,相反在卡尔多的基础上他认为这是一个特例而不是一般情况。在20世纪80年代的争论之后,后凯恩斯经济学者更加清晰地认识到凯恩斯和卡莱斯基关于投资融资思考的三个组成部分——投资乘数过程、流动性偏好和内生货币供给,并在此基础上进一步反思凯恩斯和卡莱斯基结论的稳健性,这是阿西马科普洛斯文章的重要意义所在。本文的探讨有助于厘清当前关于中国经济的各种观点和争论,凯恩斯和卡莱斯基在大萧条时期的思考固然有些简单化,但反思这两位经济学家的观点对理解当前中国经济仍具有参考意义。

This article examines the enduring debate sparked by Asimakopoulos 1983 paper Kalecki and Keynes on finance,investment and saving in post-Keynesian economic theory during the 1980s.The origins of this debate can be traced back to the liquidity preference-loanable funds controversy of the 1930s,wherein Keynes explicitly argued that finance is independent of saving,countering the view that interest rates are determined by credit supply and demand.While operating within different theoretical frameworks,Kalecki endorsed Keynes's position.Nearly five decades later,Asimakopoulos revisited Keynes's and Kalecki's perspectives on investment finance,reasserting the connection between finance and saving.Post-Keynesian economists at the time emphasized that the crux of the matter lay not in saving but in liquidity.Although Asimakopoulos erroneously centered on saving over liquidity and overlooked the banking system's role,his criticism regarding long-term interest rate dynamics was insightful.Asimakopoulos challenged the universal applicability of Keynes's and Kalecki's intuitions on interest rates,deeming them special cases building on Kaldor's work.Subsequent to the 1980s debates,post-Keynesians gained a clearer understanding of the three interrelated components underlying Keynes's and Kalecki's investment finance analyses:the investment multiplier process,liquidity preferences,and endogenous money supply.Building on this,they further reflected on the robustness of Keynes's and Kalecki's conclusions which is the pivotal contribution of Asimakopoulos's paper.This historical discussion informs current perspectives and debates surrounding the Chinese economy.Although Keynes's and Kalecki's Depression-era insights was somewhat oversimplified,reflecting on the views of these two economists is still relevant for comprehending China's contemporary economic landscape.