Minsky. Daniel H. Neilson

Чтение книги онлайн.

1 Introduction

       Theory, history, discipline

      In writing this text, I have sought to reconcile my commitment to two sometimes conflicting aims. On the one hand, it is meant to be a concise outline of Minsky’s work, consistent with the aims of Polity’s Key Contemporary Thinkers series, in which this book appears. Indeed, there is an interesting challenge to the task of somehow representing in a single text the entire work of a scholar; nor will I object if whatever attention might come to the book comes first and foremost in search of an understanding of who Hyman Minsky was.

      On the other hand, in celebrating and exploring the work of a single person, it is easy to fall into the trap of hagiography – to make the erroneous leap from “Minsky said it” to “it is true.” Minsky said many things, to many different audiences, that responded to the events and debates of his time, many of which are already fading into history. If one’s only aim is to know what Minsky said, one might therefore simply re-read his many publications, as I have done in the preparation of this book. One finds there a lively and synthetic thinker who has perceived something important and who tries many avenues to get it across.

With this book I have sought, instead, to create something that adds to Minsky’s intellectual bequest. In sorting through that wealth, I have accepted the assessment of my teacher Perry Mehrling that the value of Minsky’s contribution lies not in any particular investigation, but in “his way of looking at the world, his underlying vision” (Mehrling 1999, 139). I have also followed this recommendation of Minsky’s:

      The main issue in the controversy about what Keynes really meant is not the discovery of the true meaning of the “Master’s” text. The main issue is how to construct a theory that enables us to understand the behavior of a capitalist economy. (1978d, 6f.; also 1990c)

      As Minsky approached Keynes, so I approach Minsky. I share the goal of understanding capitalism, and in particular the role and status of finance in that system. I share with Mehrling and many other observers the belief that Minsky offered us a valuable vision through which to do so. In taking on the events and debates of his time – in academic writing, in commentary, and in engagements with his fellow economists – he put that vision to use, and in the process left us a legacy: the trace of an underlying, never fully spelled out theory. That theory, as I will show, though it is certainly present in Minsky’s published work, does not stand perfectly well on its own in its original form.

      This book is not history of thought, nor is it biography. It is a concise outline of Minsky’s thought, but that outline is the consequence of my own synthesis and consolidation. I have tried everywhere to represent Minsky’s intention unambiguously, but at the same time I have avoided supposing that what Minsky said is, by that fact, necessarily true. Rather I have assumed that Minsky’s work may be valuable in the worthwhile but incomplete task of understanding capitalism; I have tried to convey something of that value, and to suggest what use might be made of Minsky’s work by another generation of students of society.

      In doing so, I have developed three main threads over the course of the book. The first thread is financial theory. Minsky offered a theory of how financial capitalism works, which has the virtue of also giving insight into how it fails. He perceived, in my view, enduring patterns of the financial system and of market society, and it has been my goal to organize these – in a way that Minsky never did but with which I think he would agree – into a theory of capitalist finance. This is done in the main text of chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6, and is what I would consider to be the main contribution of the book.

Dealing with Minsky’s theoretical contributions has required, to some extent, a factoring out of financial history, the story of the crises that motivated Minsky and provided him with an ongoing source of inspiration, examples, and evidence. Minsky’s own writing is less accessible, some decades on, for its being tied to circumstances that have changed. One begins to resent ninety-five pages on the crisis of 1975 in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy! The reader who wishes to catch up on the history of the financial crises of the latter half of the last century is directed to Wolfson (1986), for his systematic presentation of each of the relevant episodes; what discussion I have included here of this history is largely confined to brief illustrations that are relatively self-contained and do not presume much in the way of prior knowledge.

      At the same time I have felt it important to say a bit about the global financial crisis of 2008. This comes, first, in the form of a narrative in the last section of this chapter. Second, I have made extensive use of the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), created by the US legislature to investigate the causes of the crisis. The report is based on extensive interviews, and so in many cases it allows a direct view into the motivations and perceptions of those actually involved in how the events played out. I have taken from that study numerous illustrations of what Minsky understood to be parts of the general pattern of financial crisis. For a more analytical look at the 2008 crisis I recommend the characteristically efficient and insightful analysis of Mehrling (2010).

      Minsky offers not only a theory but also a way of being an economist, which is the subject of the second thread of this book. In sections set in differentiated type, this thread proceeds in parallel with the first. Unlike the theoretical development, which is organized to present the theory coherently, this thread is organized chronologically. It considers, in order, Minsky’s major works (his СКАЧАТЬ