凯恩斯主义和供给学派都有自己形成的特定历史条件。统一于西方经济学的这两个学派,在假设和理论逻辑起点上是对立的,前者以需求决定供给为起点,后者以供给创造需求为起点,因而互不相容,把需求管理与供给管理对立起来,在政府和市场手段的使用上也存在分歧。两个学派的假设和理论逻辑与现实不一致,都回避资本主义生产方式及其矛盾,而主要是在既定的资本主义生产方式下讨论需求、供给及相互之间的关系。这两个学派是解救不同原因所致资本主义经济危机的药方,其理论和政策主张在实践中的运用,解救了旧有经济危机之后,又衍生出新的经济危机。两个学派解救危机成效的光环及革命之革命的理论演进思维定式,对其假设、理论逻辑与现实不一致及导致新危机的问题有所屏蔽,对此应还其本来,不能将其中的某个学派作为排他式单一主导一国经济政策选择的理论依据。 Keynesianism and the supply school have their own specific historical conditions. The two schools unified in western economics are antithetical to the starting point of hypothesis and theoretical logic. The former starts with the demand-determining supply, and the latter starts with supply-demand creation, so they are incompatible with each other. The demand management and supply Management is antagonistic and there are differences in the use of government and market instruments. The assumptions and theoretical logic of the two schools of thought are not consistent with the reality and both sidestep capitalist modes of production and their contradictions. However, the two schools mainly discuss demand, supply and mutual relations under the established mode of capitalist production. These two schools are the remedies for the rescue of the capitalist economic crisis caused by different causes. Their theory and policy advocacy are put into practice in practice, and the new economic crisis is derived after the rescue of the old economic crisis. The two schools of thought have tried their best to conceal the aura of crisis effectiveness and the theoretical evolutionary thinking of the revolution. They have masked the hypothesis, the inconsistency between the theoretical logic and the reality and the problems that led to the new crisis. Instead, School as the exclusive basis for leading a country’s economic policy choice theoretical basis.