11th
FEB

關於保羅.克魯曼(Paul Krugman)

Posted by 元毓 under 隨筆

先前有網友建議我可以看看Krugman的東西。

在此之前,我只有在NYT上偶爾略略瀏覽Paul Krugman的專欄。之後,我的確花了一些心思比較認真地看,同時也注意了他在獲得Nobel獎之後的一些發言。

老實說,我相當不欣賞這位經濟學家,如果他現在還算是個經濟學家的話。

恰好看到一篇哈佛大學經濟系教授–Robert Barro的訪談,這位古典自由主義派經濟學家對於Paul Krugman的評論與我閱讀該人專欄後之感想十分契合。轉錄這位經濟系教授的訪談片段,供各位參考。

……Do you read Paul Krugman’s blog?

Just when he writes nasty individual comments that people forward.

Oh, well he wrote a series of posts saying he thought the World War II spending evidence was not good, for a variety of reasons, but I guess…

He said elsewhere that it was good and that it was what got us out of the depression. He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn’t behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff. He did excellent work, but it has nothing to do with what he’s writing about.

I’m not in a position to…

No, of course not.

I’m not in a position to know things like the degree to which Paul Krugman counts as a relevant expert on new Keynesian economics.

He hasn’t done any work on that. Greg Mankiw has worked in that area. ……

訪談全文請見此

順便補充我的想法:Paul給我的感覺即是在某些大蕭條(the Great Depression)的論述上,他的歷史顯然有問題,跟真實情況與記錄並不一致。我不認為一個基於錯誤史實的經濟理論,會有多高的正確性。

再者,凱因斯經濟學派的主張本身是個荒謬!擴大內需並不能拯救經濟於水火。引述經濟學家張五常的說法:「台灣每人派一點錢,澳門每人派多一點錢,與北京提前及加速原定的公共項目措施相比,只是給人民一點聖誕禮物。以之救金融災難嗎?做白日夢!」

因此,即便Paul在專欄裡的論述,是基於真正的大蕭條史實。他的半調子凱因斯經濟學主張也是不可取!

他的確在《國際貿易理論》裡有所創見,也以此榮獲諾貝爾獎。但如同Robert Barro所言:「…這傢伙沒有在凱因斯總體經濟學裡面有過耕耘( the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics)…」

當一個經濟學家的發言,政治主張遠超過客觀經濟學時,當下他就不是一個經濟學家了。

經濟學是一門客觀的科學,這是最基本的一點。

7 Comments

(Required)
(Required, will not be published)
Sitemap