※ 발췌 (excerpt):
( ... ... ) The author's adjudication of the clash between Keynes and Hayek is far from impartial. Readers are led from the outset. Keynes had ‘a commonsense understanding’, whereas Hayek's was ‘intellectual rather than practical’. Keynes saw economics as ‘a means of improving the lives of others’, whereas Hayek was ‘consumed by economic theory for its own sake’. Keynes confronted ‘real-life dilemmas’, whereas Hayek indulged in ‘pure theory’. To a degree, this is as understandable as it is common. Few master either the depth of Hayek's work or the contrast between Keynes's General Theory and Keynesianism. Yet each is essential to any worthwhile appraisal of ‘the clash that defined modern economics’.
The significance of eight weeks in Zurich (1919–1920) to Hayek's Sensory Order and the relevance of that paradigm to Hayek's analysis of a complex socio-economic order are missed. Instead, the trite categorisation of ‘devotees of the free market’ is reflected in multiple entries for ‘laissez-faire’, none of which cites Hayek on the emptiness of the term: ‘nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on … the principle of laissez-faire’. Indeed, the ‘laissez-faire’ blunderbuss conflates policy directed towards managing real macroeconomic forces (abhorrent to Hayek) with policy to achieve monetary stability (which took Hayek's attention over many years).
The significance of eight weeks in Zurich (1919–1920) to Hayek's Sensory Order and the relevance of that paradigm to Hayek's analysis of a complex socio-economic order are missed. Instead, the trite categorisation of ‘devotees of the free market’ is reflected in multiple entries for ‘laissez-faire’, none of which cites Hayek on the emptiness of the term: ‘nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on … the principle of laissez-faire’. Indeed, the ‘laissez-faire’ blunderbuss conflates policy directed towards managing real macroeconomic forces (abhorrent to Hayek) with policy to achieve monetary stability (which took Hayek's attention over many years).
The representation of tortoise (Hayek) and hare (Keynes) sits awkwardly with the suggestion that, by 1929, ‘both men were well advanced toward honing their competing views’. As the hare's General Theory (1936) displaced his two-volume Treatise (1930), the tortoise was leaving only cryptic clues (in 1931, 1933, 1935, 1939 and 1941), none of which would support the illustration that investment projects are abandoned because there is no demand ‘for ice cream’ by the time ‘ice trays for commercial refrigerators’ are complete. The exact opposite holds: by Hayek's business cycle theory, ‘higher order’ capital projects are halted because the demand for final goods becomes too urgent. That said, a chapter which details Hayek's four LSE lectures is lively and informative; but the suggestion that these arguments ‘would indirectly provide the foundation for the monetarist counter-revolution’ is far-fetched.
( ... )
글
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기