经济学革命刻不容缓

    正如基恩所说的那样，新古典主义经济学家“执着地相信资本主义在本质上是稳定的。他们无法让自己换个角度来思考，即资本主义本质上是不稳定的，金融部门导致了最严重的崩溃。”

    新古典主义理论的前沿研究不是在扩展经济学的范畴，涵盖更多的现象，而主要是在捍卫其核心理念免受其他学说的批判。如果我们可以将经济学视为科学的话，那么它其实是一门在不断退化的科学。真正的科学会发展壮大：遗传学、心理学、量子力学、天文学都是如此，而经济学却在为自己辩护——它其实是一种意识形态。

    说到科学进步，德国物理学家马克斯•普朗克说：“科学每次都埋葬一点过去，并在这个过程中徐徐前进。”基恩对此表示赞同：“你无法说服对现实怀着虚假的信仰、并终生恪守这种见解的人。”

    我们对于密不可分的全球经济的领导者更为乐观。沮丧的美国人民要求更快的变革步伐，而不是渐进式的缓慢变革。然而，学院派经济学家的前进速度却缓慢如同冰川的移动（如果他们的确有所移动的话）。人们不怕变化，不会心甘情愿地摊牌。例如，民意调查显示，美国人民曾经对伯南克的工作心怀不满。

    美国人不想再和扶不起的阿斗继续耗下去，而潜在的赢家却迟迟不能登场。

    今天的货币和金融政策领导者对复杂性理论、演化经济学、奥地利学派、后凯恩斯经济学和其他经济学流派的所有概念都避之唯恐不及，而接纳这些概念也只会带来无足轻重的积极变化。我们需要的是某种更贴近现代资本主义经济的经济学理论，它能容纳不确定性和不平衡性，建立在基于现实的假设之上，并可以用预测的精确性来进行衡量，而且债券和货币则是其内在的重要因素。

    就如同华尔街1.0，经济学1.0也已被打破，它必须向前发展。基恩的说法很贴切：“如果经济学想要越来越接近科学而非宗教，我们就应该推倒并重建经济学的根基。”我们现正走在这条路上。

    译者：聂传炎

    As Keen puts it, neoclassical economists are "wedded to the belief that capitalism is inherently stable. They cannot bring themselves to consider the alternative perspective that capitalism is inherently unstable, and that the financial sector causes its most severe breakdowns."

    Rather than expanding the range of phenomena that economics can explain, the leading edge of neoclassical theory focuses on defending the core beliefs from the attacks of ancillary views. It is truly a degenerative science, if economics can be considered a science at all. True sciences expand and evolve: genetics, psychology, quantum mechanics, astronomy. Economics defends itself – it is an ideology.

    On scientific progress, German physicist Max Planck said that, "Science advances one funeral at a time." And Keen concurs: "You cannot persuade people who believe a mythical vision of reality and their whole lives are dedicated to believing that way."

    As it pertains to the leadership of our globally-interconnected economy, we're more optimistic. The American people's frustration demands a faster rate of change than "one funeral at a time." Whereas academic economists move at a glacial pace (if they are moving at all), the people are unafraid of change – they will fold a losing hand. Public opinion polls have shown for some time the dissatisfaction of the American people with Bernanke's performance, for instance.

    Americans want to stop playing with perennial losers, while potential winners are left on the bench.

    Including concepts from complexity theory, evolutionary economics, Austrian economics, Post-Keynesian economics, and other alternative economic schools – all shunned by today's monetary and fiscal policy leaders – would be a positive change on the margin. What we need is an economic theory that is more relevant to a modern capitalist economy – one that embraces uncertainty and disequilibrium, is grounded upon realistic assumptions, is judged by the accuracy of its predictions, and where debt and money are implicit, important factors.

    Like Wall Street 1.0, Economics 1.0 is broken and has to evolve. Keen aptly states, "If economics is to become less of a religion and more of a science, then the foundations of economics should be torn down and replaced." We are on the way.