The Wealth of Ideas A History of Economic Thought pdf

亚历山德罗·龙卡利亚（罗马，1947 年）曾任或现为罗马第一大学经济学教授（1981-2017 年）；编辑，Moneta e credito 和 PSL（以前的 BNL）季度评论（1989-2016），及其编辑委员会成员（自 1979 年）； 《后凯恩斯经济学杂志》(Journal of Post Keynesian Economics) 管理委员会（自 1978 年成立以来）； Società Italiana degli Economisti 成员（主席委员会，1992-95 年；主席，2010-2013 年）。自 2011 年成立以来，他一直担任公民文化经济协会主席，并担任 Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 成员（1998-2007 年通讯成员；自 2007 年以来，国家成员；联合学术管理员和总统委员会成员，2018-）。文章和书籍的作者被翻译成多种语言，从西班牙语到中文，从日语到俄语，从韩语到加泰罗尼亚语；其中，Piero Sraffa (Macmillan Palgrave, 2009) 和《思想的财富》(CUP, 2005)，其意大利版 (Laterza 2001) 于 2003 年获得了欧洲经济思想史学会的杰罗姆·布朗基奖。

The Wealth of Ideas A History of Economic Thought pdf 亚历山德罗·龙卡利亚

The author critically examines economic history through the lens of Sraffa's "Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities," suggesting its superiority over the mainstream neoclassical model. This model, rooted in Benthamite Utilitarianism's rational economic man, is epitomized by Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory, a synthesis of various subjectivist and utility-game theory approaches.

However, the author neglects Keynes's seminal contribution in the General Theory, focusing instead on Dennis Robertson's peculiar assertion regarding Chapter 3. This viewpoint, embraced by several economists like Richard Kahn, Austin Robinson, and Joan Robinson, overlooks Keynes's insights in chapters 19, 20, and 21, particularly concerning effective demand and aggregate supply.

The author's discussion of Keynes's theory of effective demand and aggregate supply is deemed inadequate, revealing a misunderstanding of Keynes's framework. Furthermore, the author suggests a future shift towards a Sraffa-based economic analysis, but fails to reconcile Sraffa's rejection of liquidity preference, a cornerstone of Keynes's theory.

Ultimately, the integration of Sraffa and Keynes appears problematic due to fundamental differences in their theoretical foundations, particularly regarding uncertainty. The author and Sraffa lack recognition of the connections between Keynes's analyses in the General Theory and A Treatise on Probability, further complicating their compatibility.