“One of the great growth industries of the English-speaking world is the exegesis of the writings of John Maynard Keynes. What exactly did Keynes say? When did he say it? Who were his precursors? What did he really mean? What should he have meant? What would he be saying if he were alive today?” I wrote these words many more years ago than I like to think. Since then this industry has grown still further, spurred by the financial crisis. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary in Britain’s coalition government, wrote an article in the January 17 issue of the New Statesman entitled “Keynes would be on our side”. The following week, the economists David Blanchflower and Robert Skidelsky published a riposte, talking of “the foolhardy project of enlisting Keynes on behalf of the coalition’s policy”.
“英語國家發展最為興旺的行當之一就是注解約翰?梅納德?凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)的作品。凱恩斯究竟說了些什么？什么時候說的？他繼承了哪些人的思想？他究竟是什么意思？他應該是什么意思？如果他今天還活著會怎么說？”許多年前（時間久遠到我現在都不愿去回想），我曾寫下如上的文字。自那以后，這個行當在金融危機的刺激下又得到了進一步的發展。英國聯合政府的商務大臣、自由民主黨人文斯?凱布爾(Vince Cable)在1月17日的《新政治家》(New Statesman)雜志上發表了一篇文章，題為《凱恩斯會站在我們這邊》(Keynes would be on our side)。一周后，經濟學家戴維?布蘭奇弗勞爾(David Blanchflower)和羅伯特?斯基德爾斯基(Robert Skidelsky)撰文進行了反駁，稱“為聯合政府的政策披上凱恩斯的外衣是莽撞之舉”。