发帖
雷达卡
英文文献：En kritisk vurdering af den generelle ligevaegtsmodel-根据ligevaegtsmodel模型
英文文献作者：Erik Harsaae
英文文献摘要：
The paper was originally written in Danish as part of a planned book which found no publisher. Readers of the present abstract who cannot read Danish may find some quotations given in English in the Danish text, so it may be useful to give references to page numbers in that text in the present abstract. The aim of "A Criticism of the Theory of General Equilibrium" has been to argue that the said Theory is no model of any actual economic process. It simply states a number of mathematical assumptions sufficient to construct a model of a logically possible perfect market, but these assumptions are not only false as a description of actual economic systems, but as argued in the paper could at most be realised in a very small economic system or market. The author has felt so astonished by the views expressed in Joseph Schumpeter's "History of Economic Analysis", and by the views of economic authors such as Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow, and so convinced that they express a lack of real understanding of Keynesian views on the part of these famous economists, that he found it worthwhile to exhibit these weaknesses of so-called "neo-neo-classical economic theory" as strongly as possible. Keynesianism is incompatible with neo-classical theory based on the economic model due to Léon Walras. To demonstrate the truth of this statement the growth models by Roy Harrod representing the Keynesian and by Robert Solow representing the neo-classical point of view are compared and shown to be based on radically different assumptions. Also the IS-LM-model by John Hicks, as supported by Alvin Hansen, is shown to be un- Keynesian. In connection with these issues an attempt is made to replace the concept of equilibrium as defined by temporal stationarity by a concept of logical determination. The title of the text in Danish translates as already mentioned as "A Criticism of the General Equilibrium Model". The logic of this model is sketched on the first page as a distribution of provisions procured by the "breadwinners" of some primitive tribe. Such a distribution may be described by a model mathematically similar to that used by Baumol and Oates in their "The Theory of Environmental Policy" (1975, 1988). But it is irrelevant in the context of actual modern markets, i.e. to Economic Policy. L?on Walras is usually regarded as the original author of this model in its present form. The enthusiastic evaluation by Schumpeter of this model in his "History of Economic Analysis" (posthumous edition 1954) is illustrated by the quotations on pages 42-43 of the Danish text. I claim that Schumpeter's evaluation is misleading. On pages 44 et seq. the assessment of Keynesianism by Schumpeter in 1936 based on his review of Keynes's "General Theory" is described and also analysed as the expression of a lack of understanding. The positive evaluation of the Keynesian views by the present author has also been the inspiration of his criticism of American economists such as Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow. On pages 55-62 it is shown that Robert Solow's criticism of Roy Harrod's growth model is due to a completely mistaken view of the aim of that model. On pages 66-71 a similar criticism is given of John Hick's ISLM-model and Alvin Hansen's defence of this model in his "A Guide (sic!) to Keynes". It would be very na?ve to deny that the use in practice of "the Keynesian recipe" in order to solve the problem of "full employment" (in itself a loose concept) is difficult, but Milton Friedman's criticism of "the Phillips Curve" (which is not Keynesian) does not hit the mark, as I think is shown by my arguments on pages 89-94. "Involuntary unemployment" is a real phenomenon, and Friedman's claim that unemployed workers will not seek employment, unless current wages are increased, goes against a fundamental Keynesian assumption. This assumption is based on an institutional fact. But economic assumptions must be based on institutional facts in order to be relevant in the real world. Economic problems are not solved by mathematics, but by the ability to diagnose shortcomings of economic systems and rational measures to abolish them. To determine such measures should be the real aim of economic science as it was to John Maynard Keynes. The concluding text of the paper on pages 94-105 supports the present author's own views by references to books by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and a recent book by the German author Karl-Heinz Brodbeck. Interested readers of this Abstract who cannot read Danish may also form some ideas of the contents by perusal of the References concluding the Danish text since most of the literature used is in English or German.
这篇文章最初是用丹麦文写成的，作为一本计划出版的书的一部分，但这本书找不到出版商。本摘要的读者如果不懂丹麦文，可能会在丹麦文文本中发现一些英文引文，所以在本摘要中给出该文本的页码可能会有用。《对一般均衡理论的批评》的目的是论证上述理论不是任何实际经济过程的模型。它只是国家的数学假设足以构建一个模型,逻辑上可能的完美的市场,但这些假设不仅是虚假的描述实际经济系统,但认为在报纸上最多可以意识到在一个很小的经济体系或市场。作者观点感到惊讶的约瑟夫?熊彼特(Joseph Schumpeter)的经济分析“历史”,和经济的观点作者保罗?萨缪尔森和罗伯特?索洛等,所以相信他们表达缺乏真正的理解凯恩斯主义的观点的一部分,这些著名的经济学家,他发现它值得展示这些弱点的所谓“经济理论”neo-neo-classical尽可能强烈。由于瓦尔拉斯的理论，凯恩斯主义与基于经济模型的新古典主义理论不相容。为了证明这一说法的真实性，对代表凯恩斯主义的罗伊?哈罗德和代表新古典主义观点的罗伯特?索洛的增长模型进行了比较，并表明它们基于完全不同的假设。此外，由约翰?希克斯(John Hicks)提出的is - lm模型，并得到阿尔文?汉森(Alvin Hansen)的支持，也被证明是一种非凯恩斯主义。关于这些问题，有人试图用逻辑决定的概念取代由时间平稳性所定义的均衡的概念。案文的丹麦文标题已译为“对一般均衡模式的批评”。这一模式的逻辑在第一页被概括为某些原始部落的“养家糊口的人”所采购的粮食的分配情况。这种分布可以用一种数学上类似于Baumol和Oates在他们的“环境政策理论”(1975,1988)中使用的模型来描述。但在实际的现代市场环境中，也就是经济政策中，它是无关紧要的。L, on Walras通常被认为是这个模型目前形式的原作者。熊彼特在他的《经济分析史》(死后版1954)中对这个模型的热情评价在丹麦文本42-43页的引文中得到了说明。我认为熊彼特的评价具有误导性。见第44页等。1936年熊彼特在评论凯恩斯的“通论”的基础上对凯恩斯主义的评价被描述和分析为缺乏理解的表现。本文作者对凯恩斯主义观点的积极评价，也启发了他对保罗?萨缪尔森(Paul Samuelson)和罗伯特?索洛(Robert Solow)等美国经济学家的批评。在第55-62页中，罗伯特·索洛对罗伊·哈罗德增长模型的批评是由于对该模型的目的的一种完全错误的看法。在第66-71页，对约翰?希克的岛屿模型和阿尔文?汉森在他的《凯恩斯指南》(原文如此)中对该模型的辩护也提出了类似的批评。很na喜爱已经否认“凯恩斯食谱”的使用在实践中为了解决“充分就业”的问题(本身一个松散的概念)是困难的,但米尔顿?弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)的批评“菲利普斯曲线”(凯恩斯主义)不成功,我想表明我的观点在89 - 94页。“非自愿失业”是一个真实的现象，弗里德曼声称，失业工人不会去找工作，除非当前工资提高，这与凯恩斯的基本假设相违背。这一假设是基于一个制度上的事实。但经济假设必须基于制度事实，才能与现实世界相关联。经济问题不是靠数学来解决的，而是靠诊断经济系统缺陷和采取合理措施加以废除的能力。确定这些措施应该是经济科学的真正目标，就像约翰?梅纳德?凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)所做的那样。论文94-105页的结论性文本通过引用Nicholas georgescul - roegen的著作和德国作家Karl-Heinz Brodbeck最近的一本书来支持作者自己的观点。对这份摘要感兴趣的读者，如果不懂丹麦文，也可以通过阅读丹麦文正文的参考资料，对其内容形成一些想法，因为大多数文献使用的是英语或德语。
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
