凯恩斯应该放在经济大萧条的背景下去理解。对当前中国而言,应该采取财政投入的方式去搞基础设施建设,而不是强制贷款。在经过金融危机时期的“四万亿…”刺激后,面对本轮中国经济的下行,政策显得谨慎了很多。“四万亿”刺激可能确实带来了一些负面的后果,但这是否是凯恩斯刺激带来的后果呢?回顾美国金融危机前后的全球经济政策的得失,是否证明凯恩斯政策的失败呢?2008年金融危机爆发,美国政府采取了力度空前的刺激和救助。在危机爆发的短短几个月时间里,美联储迅速把基准利率下降至零水平,并实行了巨额的量化宽松政策,美国政府也立即推出了近8000亿美元的财政救助刺激措施。但这些政策受到了美国主流经济学中芝加哥学派经济学家的诟病。按照芝加哥学派的观点,政府不需要 Keynes should understand it in the context of the Great Depression. For the current China, it should take the financial input to engage in infrastructure construction rather than compulsory loans. After the “four trillion ...” stimulus during the financial crisis, the government appears cautious in the face of the current downturn in the Chinese economy. Can the stimulus really bring some negative consequences? But is this the result of the Keynesian stimulus? Recalling the pros and cons of global economic policies before and after the U.S. financial crisis, prove the failure of the Keynesian policy? When the financial crisis broke out in 2008, the U.S. government took an unprecedented stimulus and rescue. In just a few months after the crisis broke out, the Federal Reserve quickly lowered the benchmark interest rate to zero and implemented a huge amount of quantitative easing. The U.S. government immediately launched nearly 800 billion U.S. dollars of financial aid stimulus measures. But these policies were criticized by Chicago School economists in mainstream American economics. According to the Chicago School, the government does not need it