本文選題：貨幣信用危機(jī) + 經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)��； 參考：《吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：自經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)在資本主義國(guó)家第一次爆發(fā)以來(lái)，許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家就投入到這一領(lǐng)域的研究，推動(dòng)了經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論的發(fā)展。馬克思通過(guò)對(duì)資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)制度、社會(huì)關(guān)系的分析，系統(tǒng)研究了經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，其不僅提出由于生產(chǎn)過(guò)剩所引發(fā)的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，還包含有虛擬資產(chǎn)膨脹、現(xiàn)實(shí)資本過(guò)剩所引發(fā)的貨幣信用危機(jī)，及其相關(guān)性的理論。馬克思通過(guò)對(duì)生產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域和流通領(lǐng)域的考察，提出了經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論，對(duì)根除經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)提供了理論依據(jù)。 自資本主義制度確立以來(lái)，資本主義國(guó)家就會(huì)周期性地爆發(fā)經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，面對(duì)這種周而復(fù)始的現(xiàn)象，西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)界對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的態(tài)度，從一開始的不承認(rèn)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榱顺姓J(rèn)，許多西方經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家開始研究經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，并提出了一系列的危機(jī)理論，但是這并沒有改變資本主義國(guó)家擺脫經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的命運(yùn)，自2007年，美國(guó)次貸危機(jī)逐步顯現(xiàn)出來(lái)，迅速的蔓延到其他金融機(jī)構(gòu)并產(chǎn)生了一系列的連鎖反應(yīng)，導(dǎo)致了投資者對(duì)房地產(chǎn)、金融業(yè)、美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)及全球資本市場(chǎng)的擔(dān)憂。面對(duì)此次全球性的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，無(wú)論是自由主義學(xué)派還是凱恩斯主義學(xué)派都無(wú)法對(duì)其進(jìn)行完整的理論解釋。在此背景下，重新研讀馬克思的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論，正確認(rèn)識(shí)資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)形成的根源、本質(zhì)和形成機(jī)制，對(duì)于解答當(dāng)今席卷全球的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)有重要的指導(dǎo)意義。 本文基于這種背景下展開了研究，對(duì)正確認(rèn)識(shí)馬克思經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論，全面把握經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)實(shí)質(zhì)具有一定的借鑒意義。面對(duì)此次經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)，西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)界集體失語(yǔ)的情況，，認(rèn)真細(xì)致地鉆研馬克思的著作，系統(tǒng)地對(duì)馬克思經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論進(jìn)行梳理，并結(jié)合當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的實(shí)際材料，發(fā)掘其當(dāng)代價(jià)值，真正做到將馬克思主義具體化、實(shí)踐化，是目前馬克思主義理論發(fā)展中非常重要的問(wèn)題。 本文以貨幣信用危機(jī)理論為基礎(chǔ)，通過(guò)對(duì)馬克思與西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)貨幣信用危機(jī)理論進(jìn)行比較，揭示出馬克思貨幣信用危機(jī)理論的科學(xué)指導(dǎo)意義。論文的第一部分探討了馬克思與西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)貨幣信用危機(jī)理論中方法論的比較，具體闡述了馬克思以辯證唯物主義作為方法論基礎(chǔ)，對(duì)貨幣信用危機(jī)的形成過(guò)程進(jìn)行科學(xué)的抽象，并通過(guò)各方面聯(lián)系，把握了經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的總體過(guò)程，相較于以凱恩斯為代表的西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)界采用的主觀主義方法論基礎(chǔ)，更具科學(xué)性。第二部分對(duì)馬克思和西方主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)關(guān)于貨幣信用危機(jī)形成的原因進(jìn)行了比較。具體闡述了馬克思關(guān)于危機(jī)形成的一般可能性和現(xiàn)實(shí)可能性的研究。第三部分具體分析了危機(jī)形成機(jī)制的不同。第四部分對(duì)馬克思的資本主義基本矛盾是引發(fā)危機(jī)根源的理論觀點(diǎn)，與凱恩斯認(rèn)為人類非理性預(yù)期及政府不當(dāng)行為時(shí)引發(fā)危機(jī)根源的理論觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了比較。第五部分則是對(duì)雙方關(guān)于危機(jī)治理觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的比較，在以上論述的基礎(chǔ)上本文得出了相應(yīng)結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:Since the economic crisis broke out for the first time in capitalist countries, many economists have devoted themselves to the research in this field, which has promoted the development of economic crisis theory. Through the analysis of capitalist economic system and social relations, Marx systematically studied the economic crisis, which not only proposed the economic crisis caused by overproduction, but also included the expansion of virtual assets. The theory of currency credit crisis caused by excess capital and its correlation. Marx put forward the theory of economic crisis by investigating the field of production and circulation, which provided the theoretical basis for eradicating the economic crisis. Since the establishment of the capitalist system, the capitalist countries will periodically break out economic crises. In the face of this recurring phenomenon, the attitude of the western mainstream economists towards the economic crisis has changed from non-recognition at the beginning to recognition. Many Western economists began to study the economic crisis and put forward a series of crisis theories, but this did not change the fate of capitalist countries to get rid of the economic crisis. Since 2007, the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States has gradually emerged. The rapid spread to other financial institutions and a series of ripple effects have led to investor concerns about real estate, the financial industry, the U.S. economy and global capital markets. In the face of the global economic crisis, neither liberalism nor Keynesianism can give a complete theoretical explanation. Under this background, studying Marx's theory of economic crisis and correctly understanding the origin, essence and formation mechanism of capitalist economic crisis are of great guiding significance to the solution of the economic crisis sweeping the whole world. Based on this background, this paper carries out a study, which has certain reference significance for correctly understanding Marx's economic crisis theory and comprehensively grasping the essence of economic crisis. In the face of this economic crisis, the western mainstream economic circles have collectively aphasia, carefully studied Marx's works, systematically combed Marx's economic crisis theory, and combined with the actual materials of the current economic crisis. It is a very important problem in the development of Marxist theory to explore its contemporary value and truly materialize and practice Marxism. Based on the theory of monetary credit crisis, this paper compares Marx's theory of monetary credit crisis with that of western mainstream economics, and reveals the scientific guiding significance of Marx's theory of monetary credit crisis. The first part of the paper discusses the comparison of methodology in the theory of monetary credit crisis between Marx and western mainstream economics, and expounds in detail that Marx takes dialectical materialism as the basis of methodology. This paper abstracts scientifically the forming process of currency credit crisis, and through the connection of various aspects, grasps the overall process of economic crisis, compared with the subjectivism methodology adopted by the mainstream western economists represented by Keynes. More scientific. The second part compares the causes of monetary credit crisis between Marx and western mainstream economics. Specifically elaborated Marx about the crisis formation general possibility and the realistic possibility research. The third part analyzes the different mechanism of crisis formation. In the fourth part, the author compares Marx's basic contradiction of capitalism with Keynes's view that human irrational expectation and improper government behavior lead to crisis. In the fifth part, the author makes a detailed comparison of the two sides' views on crisis management, and draws the corresponding conclusions on the basis of the above discussion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：F820.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 王璐;;從次貸危機(jī)到經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的機(jī)制解析——基于馬克思經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)危機(jī)理論的重新解讀[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2011年02期

2 丁堡駿;趙羽;高冠中;;現(xiàn)代資產(chǎn)階級(jí)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)理論批判[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2011年12期

3 許建康;;經(jīng)濟(jì)長(zhǎng)波論及其各學(xué)派分歧的最大焦點(diǎn)[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)縱橫;2009年11期

4 胡若南;陳葉盛;;《資本論》中的貨幣危機(jī)理論[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2008年06期

5 衛(wèi)興華;孫詠梅;;用馬克思主義的理論邏輯分析國(guó)際金融危機(jī)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)輯刊;2011年01期

6 劉貴鵬;楊建飛;;貨幣視角下的“大危機(jī)”——?jiǎng)P恩斯與弗里德曼的理論闡釋對(duì)比及啟示[J];生態(tài)經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年07期

本文編號(hào)：1821359