动物精神-第37章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


rs　of　either　its　advantages　or　its　hazards。　Ignorance　of　what　it　can　contribute　has　in　the　past　led　some　countries　to　throw　out　the　system　or　clip　its　wings。　Ignorance　of　the　hazards　has　made　imprudence　in　markets　and　policy　neglect　all　the　more　likely。　Regaining　a　well…functioning　capitalism　will　require　re…education　and　deep　reform。Capitalism　is　not　the　“free　market”　or　laisser　faire　–　a　system　of　zero　government　“plus　the　constable”。　Capitalist　systems　function　less　well　without　state　protection　of　investors；　lenders　and　panies　against　monopoly；　deception　and　fraud。　These　systems　may　lack　the　requisite　political　support　and　cause　social　stresses　without　subsidies　to　stimulate　inclusion　of　the　less　advantaged　in　society’s　formal　business　economy。　Last；　a　huge　social　insurance　system；　with　resulting　high　taxes；　low　take…home　pay　and　low　wealth；　may　not　hurt　capitalism。In　essence；　capitalist　systems　are　a　mechanism　by　which　economies　may　generate　growth　in　knowledge　–　with　much　uncertainty　in　the　process；　owing　to　the　inpleteness　of　knowledge。　Growth　in　knowledge　leads　to　ine　growth　and　job　satisfaction；　uncertainty　makes　the　economy　prone　to　sudden　swings　–　all　phenomena　noted　by　Marx　in　1848。　Understanding　was　slow　to　e；　though。Well　into　the　20th　century；　scholars　viewed　economic　advances　as　resulting　from　mercial　innovations　enabled　by　the　discoveries　of　scientists　–　discoveries　that　e　from　outside　the　economy　and　out　of　the　blue。　Why　then　did　capitalist　economies　benefit　more　than　others？　Joseph　Schumpeter’s　early　theory　proposed　that　a　capitalist　economy　is　quicker　to　seize　sudden　opportunities　and　thus　has　higher　productivity；　thanks　to　capitalist　culture：　the　zeal　of　capable　entrepreneurs　and　diligence　of　expert　bankers。　But　the　idea　of　all…knowing　bankers　and　unerring　entrepreneurs　is　laughable。　Scholars　now　find　that　most　growth　in　knowledge　is　not　science…driven。　Schumpeterian　economics　–　Adam　Smith　plus　sociology　–　captures　very　little。Friedrich　Hayek　offered　another　view　in　the　1930s。　Any　modern　economy；　capitalist　or　state…run；　is　a　great　soup　of　private　“know…how”　dispersed　among　the　specialised　participants。　No　one；　he　said；　not　even　a　state　agency；　could　amass　all　the　knowledge　that　each　participant　“on　the　spot”　inevitably　acquires。　The　state　would　have　no　idea　where　to　invest。　Only　capitalism　solves　this　“knowledge　problem”。Later；　Hayek　fleshed　out　a　theory　of　how　capitalism　makes　“discoveries”　on　its　own。　He　had　no　problem　with　the　concept　of　an　innovative　idea；　for　he　understood　that；　even　among　experts；　knowledge　is　inplete　about　most　things　not　yet　tried。　So　he　felt　free　to　suppose　that；　thanks　to　the　specialised　insights　each　acquires；　a　manager　or　employee　may　one　day　“imagine”　（as　Hayek’s　hero；　David　Hume；　would　have　put　it）　a　mercial　departure　–　one　that　could　not　be　inferred　or　envisioned　by　people　outside　the　individual’s　line　of　work。　Then　he　portrays　a　well…functioning　capitalist　system　as　a　broad…based；　bottom…up　organism　that　gives　diverse　new　ideas　opportunities　to　pete　for　development　and；　with　luck；　adoption　in　the　marketplace。　That　“discovery　procedure”　makes　it　far　more　innovative　than　the　top…down　systems　of　socialism　or　corporatism。　The　latter　are　too　bureaucratic　to　learn　about　ideas　from　below　and　unlikely　to　obtain　approval　from　all　the　social　partners　of　the　ideas　that　do　get　through。Well…functioning　capitalist　economies；　with　their　high　propensity　to　innovate；　could　arise　only　when　serviceable　institutions　were　in　place。　The　freedoms　borne　by　England’s　Glorious　Revolution　of　1688　and　the　“mercial　society”　of　the　Scots　were　not　enough。　There　had　to　be　financial　institutions　where　there　would　be　disinterested　financiers；　each　trying　to　make　the　best　investment；　and　–　importantly　–　a　plurality　of　views　among　them；　so　financiers　funded　a　diversity　of　projects。　There　also　had　to　be　limited　liability　for　panies　and　a　market　enabling　their　takeover。　Such　institutions　had　to　wait　for　demand　by　wide　numbers　of　business　people　wanting　to　build　a　new　product　or　new　market　or　new　business　model。　Rudimentary　institutions　began　to　emerge　early　in　the　19th　century；　from　pany　law　and　stock　exchanges　to　joint…stock　banks　and　“merchant”　banks　lending　to　industry。Unprecedented　rewards　soon　followed　in　Europe　and　America：　new　cities　rising；　unbroken　productivity　growth；　steadily　climbing　wages　and　generally　high　employment。　Lifetime　prospects　improved　for　all　or　nearly　all　participants。　Less　measurable　but　ultimately　fundamental；　growing　numbers　of　people　in　capitalist　economies　had　engaging　careers　and　were　energised　by　their　challenges　and　explorations。　Capitalism　was　a　godsend　for　them。From　the　outset；　the　biggest　downside　was　that　creative　ventures　caused　uncertainty　not　only　for　the　entrepreneurs　themselves　but　also　for　everyone　else　in　the　global　economy。　Swings　in　venture　activity　created　a　fluctuating　economic　environment。　Frank　Knight；　observing　US　capitalism　in　his　1921　book；　said　that　a　pany；　in　all　of　its　decisions　aside　from　the　handful　of　routine　ones；　faces　what　is　now　called　“Knightian　uncertainty”。　In　an　innovative　economy　there　are　not　enough　precedents　to　be　able　to　estimate　the　probability　of　this　or　that　oute。　John　Maynard　Keynes　in　1936　insisted　on　the　“precariousness”　of　much　of　the　“knowledge”　used　to　value　an　investment　–　thus　the　“flimsiness”　of　investors’　beliefs。　（Yet　now　he　is　seen　as　“Smith　plus　psychological　swings”。）No　coherent　moral　justification　was　ever　suggested　for　throwing　out　a　system　providing　invaluable　and　irreplaceable　novelty；　problem…solving　and　exploration；　thus　personal　growth。　On　the　contrary；　humanist　philosophy　has　continued　since　ancient　times　to　hold　up　such　experience　as　the　“good　life”。　Socialists　and　corporatists　never　offered　an　alternative　good　life。　They　simply　claimed　that　the　system　they　advocated　could　out…do　capitalism：　wider　prosperity；　or　more　jobs；　or　greater　job　satisfaction。　Unfortunately；　there　is　still　no　wide　understanding　among　the　public　of　the　benefits　that　can　fairly　be　credited　to　capitalism　and　why　these　benefits　have　costs。　This　intellectual　failure　has　left　capitalism　vulnerable　to　opponents　and　to　ignorance　within　the　system。Capitalism　lost　much　of　its　standing　in　the　interwar　period；　when　many　countries　in　western　continental　Europe　shifted　to　corporatist　systems。　This　was　a　low　point　in　the　public’s　grasp　of　political　economy。　In　the　end；　the　promises　of　greater　prosperity　and　lesser　swings　could　not　be　delivered。　The　nations　that　kept　capitalism　while　making　reforms；　some　good　and　others　maybe　not；　ultimately　performed　well　again　–　until　now。　Those　that　broke　from　capitalism　were　less　innovative。　After　the　disturbances　of　the　1970s；　they　saw　unemployment　rise　far　more　than　the　capitalist　nations　did。　They　were　worse　on　economic　inclusion　too。Now　capitalism　is　in　the　midst　of　its　second　crisis。　An　explanation　offered　is　that　the　bankers；　whatever　they　knew　about　capitalism；　knew　that　to　keep　their　jobs　and　their　bonuses　they　would　have　to　borrow　more　and　more　to　lend　more　and　more；　in　order　to　meet　profit　targets　and　hold　up　share　prices。　The　implication　was　that　the　crisis　flowed　from　a　failure　of　corporate　governance　to　curb　bonuses　and　of　regulation　to　rein　in　leveraging　of　bank　capital　to　levels　that　made　the　banks　vulnerable　to　a　break　in　housing　prices。But　why　did　big　shareholders　not　move　to　stop　over…leveraging　before　it　reached　dangerous　levels？　Why　did　legislators　not　demand　regulatory　intervention？　The　answer；　I　believe；　is　that　they　had　no　sense　of　the　existing　Knightian　uncertainty。　So　they　had　no　sense　of　the　possibility　of　a　huge　break　in　housing　prices　and　no　sense　of　the　fundamental　inapplicability　of　the　risk　management　models　used　in　the　banks。　“Risk”　came　to　mean　volatility　over　some　recent　past。　The　volatility　of　the　price　as　it　vibrates　around　some　path　was　considered　but　not　the　uncertainty　of　the　path　itself：　the　risk　that　it　would　shift　down。　The　banks’　chief　executives；　too；　had　little　grasp　of　uncertainty。　Some　had　the　instinct　to　buy　insurance　but　did　not　see　the　uncertainty　of　the　insurer’s　solvency。Much　is　dysfunctional　in　the　US　and　the　UK：　a　finan