The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?
The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?
复制标题
历史的未来：自由民主能否在中产阶级的衰落中幸存下来？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Alexander Svitych
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Francis Fukuyama;Alexander Svitych
债务是否是一个棘手的问题——凯恩斯主义的“功能金融”似乎表明并非如此。即使当代经济中稀缺性的相关性不断下降，也没有得到普遍认可（第 5 章）。约翰·金本人似乎仍然倾向于认为 1945 年后时代的平等主义和福利国家成就仍然是暂时的（第 13 页）。但在一些核心问题上，他似乎保留了判断。例如，富裕国家内部的转型增长现象没有得到似乎值得讨论的讨论，凯恩斯主义对需求不足的理解也没有得到应用于较贫穷（发展中）经济体的讨论，保护主义和发展主义优先事项之间的重叠也没有得到讨论，金融化时代是否预示着长期的“衰落时代”也没有得到讨论（第6章）。虽然他支持对金融进行“警惕的监管”，反对货币政策并普遍支持“大政府”，但他对于工资主导的通胀是否仍然有可能不置可否（第七章）。尽管他对某些特定的政策选择有着坚定的看法，但对其他政策选择的“国王后凯恩斯主义”的阐述，尤其是全球主义（第 8 章）和斯拉夫形式主义，被删节了（第 9 章）。期望 140 页的“简介”是全面的是不合理的。我们在这里提醒人们，后凯恩斯主义政治经济学仍然可以做出很多贡献。
debt is an intractable problem or not – Keynesian ‘functional finance’ seems to suggest not. Even the declining relevance of scarcity in contemporary economies is not universally endorsed (ch.5). John King himself seems still inclined to maintain that the egalitarian and welfare state achievements of the post-1945 era remain temporary (p.13). But on some central questions he seems to withhold judgement. For example, the phenomenon of transformational growth within the rich polities doesn’t get the discussion it seems to warrant, nor the application of Keynesian understandings of demand deficiency to poorer (developing) economies, nor overlaps between protectionist and developmentalist priorities, nor whether the age of financialization portends a longterm ‘age of decline’ (ch.6). While he supports ‘vigilant regulation’ of finance, opposes monetary policy and generally endorses ‘big government’, he is non-committal about whether wage-led inflation is still a possibility (ch.7). Though he has firm views on some particular policy options, elaboration of a ‘Kingian post-Keynesianism’ on others, especially globalism (ch.8) and Sraffian formalism, is truncated (ch.9). It is unreasonable to expect a 140-page ‘introduction’ to be comprehensive. What we have here is a reminder that post-Keynesian political economy still has much to contribute.