Abstract

In Keynes’ model, no variety of private sector spending plays a more critical role than investment. This is so because reaching full employment requires that it be large enough to offset the volume of saving that would be forthcoming at that level of economic activity, which occurs only rarely and by coincidence. Despite its key role, very few Post Keynesians have undertaken empirical studies of Keynes’ approach (as opposed to one based on Keynes). While I suspect that there are a number of reasons for this, perhaps the greatest stumbling block is one related to data: how do we measure not just investors’ expectations, but the difference between what was expected and what actually transpired? I believe I have developed a defensible solution to this problem, one that not only allows for a more direct test of Keynes’ theory but also offers tremendous support for it.

摘要

在凯恩斯的模型中，没有比投资更重要的私营部门支出。之所以如此，是因为实现充分就业需要足够大，以抵消在该经济活动水平下即将出现的储蓄量，而这种情况很少发生，而且是巧合。尽管具有关键作用，但很少有后凯恩斯主义者对凯恩斯的方法进行实证研究（与基于凯恩斯的方法相反）。虽然我怀疑造成这种情况的原因有很多，但最大的绊脚石可能与数据有关：我们如何不仅衡量投资者的预期，还衡量预期与实际发生的差异？我相信我已经为这个问题制定了一个合理的解决方案，