Prophets for today
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: March 19, 2014
Mar 14th 2014, 16:43 by C.R. | LONDON
ON MARCH 10th 1944, seventy years ago this month, a relatively-obscure Austrian émigré published a book that would become one of the great classics of 20th-century economic literature. The new economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes were much in fashion in that period; this new book judged them rather harshly.
The dissenter from the growing consensus around Keynes was Friedrich von Hayek, an economist from Vienna. The book was the "Road to Serfdom", in which Hayek argued that the extension of central planning is the start of the growth of constraints on individual liberty, which inevitably leads to the emergence of tyrannical regimes, both communist and fascist in nature. It was the culmination of four years' work—and several decades challenging many of Keynes' new economic theories, particularly on what governments should do during depressions.
That has often been portrayed more recently as a battle between two economic titans. Hayek, in the 1970s, came to be seen as opposing everything Keynes and the Keynesian consensus stood for. More recently, many see the change towards more free-market ideas since the 1980s as the victory of Hayek's ideas over Keynes'—a process that has since reversed as a result of the Great Recession. This academic battle of ideas has even made its way into popular media. On Youtube, there is a series of rap parody videos of the academic battle between Keynes and Hayek, available here, hereand here.
But Keynes himself in fact did not dislike many of Hayek's ideas in the "Road to Serfdom". On the contrary, he had indirectly helped Hayek to write it. When Hayek and the rest of the London School of Economics moved to Cambridge in 1940 to escape the Blitz in London, Keynes found him rooms at his college, King's, to live and work in, and the two remained in regular contact until Keynes' death in 1946. Ideologically, they also sang from the same hymn sheet: both were liberals with a distaste for authoritarian regimes such as communism and fascism. Keynes agreed with Hayek that fascism was not a healthy reaction against communism, as many contemporaries in Britain thought, but was instead equally dangerous for liberalism.
Keynes rejected the populist interpretation of Hayek's argument—that any increase in state planning is the first step on the way to tyranny—but agreed with the overall view that the bounds of state intervention needed to be clearly defined for liberal democracy to remain safe (and more explicitly than even Hayek himself did in the book). Receiving an early copy of the "Road to Serfdom" from Hayek personally, Keynes wrote back to him, praising the book. But Keynes thought Hayek should have been more explicit in what sort of red lines would be necessary for increased state intervention not to imperil liberty:
You admit here and there that it is a question of knowing where to draw the line. You agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that the logical extreme [total lassiez-faire policies] is not possible. But you give us no guidance as to where to draw it...as soon as you admit that the extreme is not possible and that a line has to be drawn, you are, on your own argument, done for, since you are trying to persuade us that as soon as one moves an inch in the planned direction you are necessarily launched on the slippery slope which will lead you in due course over the precipice.
In short, Keynes took the lessons of Hayek's work as a warning that the expansion of state should be limited and politicians need to know when to stop—which he fundamentally agreed with. Although he thought more state control in some areas may be justified, governments always need to demark a line beyond which they do not traverse. That may be a lesson not only relevant for then, but also for our time as well.
世紀經濟論戰：凱因斯vs.海耶克
2014-03-19 Web only 作者：經濟學人
1944年3月10日，距今70年前，一位相對沒有名氣的奧地利流亡者，出版了一本隨後成為20世紀經濟學經典的書籍。當時，凱因斯（John Maynard Keynes）的經濟理念十分流行，這本新書則嚴厲地批判那些理念。
那位異議者就是出身維也納的經濟學家海耶克（Friedrich von Hayek），那本書則是《通往奴役之路》。海耶克在書中指出，中央計畫擴張，正是個人自由限制增多的開始，終將導致暴政崛起。那是4年研究的頂點，也是數十年來對凱因斯新經濟理論挑戰的頂點，最重要的爭議之處就在於，景氣衰退時政府該怎麼做。
各界大多將此爭議視為兩大經濟學巨擘之間的戰爭。到了1970年代，不少人認為，海耶克反對一切凱因斯和凱因斯學派的立場。1980年代開始，自由市場理念崛起，許多人也認為那代表海耶克勝過了凱因斯。
但事實上，凱因斯本人並不討厭海耶克在《通往奴役之路》提出的想法。相反地，他還間接協助海耶克撰寫此書。當海耶克在1940年移往劍橋、躲避倫敦大轟炸之時，凱因斯在國王學院為他找了房間，方便他生活和工作；及至凱因斯在1946年過世之前，兩人一直保有連繫。兩人的意識形態亦十分相近：他們都是自由派，厭惡共產主義、法西斯主義等獨裁政權。當時，許多英國人相信，法西斯主義是針對共產主義而起的良好反應，凱因斯則同意海耶克的看法：法西斯主義對自由主義來說同樣危險。
凱因斯反對海耶克論點的民粹式解讀，亦即任何中央計畫擴張都是朝暴政跨出的第一步，但凱因斯也同意政府介入必須劃出明確限制，才能保護自由民主。海耶克親自將《通往奴役之路》交給凱因斯，凱因斯也回信給海耶克稱讚此書；不過，凱因斯認為，海耶克應該更明確地指出，政府介入該設下何種限制，才不致危害自由。
簡言之，凱因斯將海耶克的研究視作警告，根本上也同意，政府擴張應受限制，政治人物必須知道何時該停手。雖然凱因斯認為在部分領域增加政府管控有其合理性，但政府必須劃出明確的界限才行。或許，那不單在當時是則教訓，在我們這個時代也是。（黃維德譯）
留言列表
高普考補充資料 (3)
