評論
打印
After the collapse of the Soviet entire the United States emerged as the sole superpower. No other power, or the combination of powers, could challenge it's supremacy. But the unipolar world did not take root. When President Bush sought to assert America's supremacy by invading Iraq on false pretences he achieved the exact opposite of what he intended. The United States suffered a precipitous decline in its power and influence. So the disarray in the international financial system is matched by instability in international relations. The new order that will eventually emerge will not be dominated by the United States to the same extent as the old one.
前蘇聯解體后，美國成為了唯一的超級大國，沒有其他大國或者國家聯盟可以挑戰其至高無上的國力，但是這種“單極”的世界秩序未能持久。當布什總統為彰顯美國的威力以不實之詞為借口入侵伊拉克時，其效果與他的意圖適得其反。美國的力量和影響力一落千丈，結果混亂的國際金融體系加之不穩定的國際關系形成了。此后，終將形成新的世界秩序，將不會再像以往那樣受美國的控制和左右。
To understand what is happening we need a different conceptual framework from the one to which we have been accustomed. The efficient market hypothesis looks at financial markets in isolation and totally disregards politics. But that gives a distorted picture. As I have pointed out several times, behind the invisible hand of markets there is the visible hand of politics which establishes the rules and conditions in which the market mechanism operates. My conceptual framework relates to the political economy, not the market economy as an abstract construct that is governed by timelessly valid laws. I look at financial markets as a branch of history.
為了便于理解什么正在發生，我們需要一個有別于慣性思維的概念性框架。有效的市場假說孤立地看待金融市場，完全無視政治因素，但這扭曲了現實。正如我多次提到的那樣，在市場無形的手背后有一只有形的政治之手，它制定有關市場運作的各種法律法規。我所說的概念性框架與政治經濟學有關，而與抽象概念的市場經濟學無關。我把金融市場視作歷史的一個分支。
