传统古典经济学以“理性人”的假设,几乎解释了所有可能行为最为原始的动力,也为所有社会个体的未来行为方向指明了出路。“趋利避害”几乎成为所有个体在即便是缺乏统一协调之下依然能够有效运作的保证。这种行为驱动机制在解释完全独立的个体行为的时候,似乎能够体现出具有普适性的解释力,市场机制的调节能够实现资源的充分流动,进而实现优化配置。如果将这样的分析,放置在长期视角下,按照亚当·斯密的主张,就能使社会福利最大化。然而,社会福利最大化的主张,只是提出了一种趋势,也即,“理性”的行为驱动能够促使个体行为结果趋向于期望的社会收益,最终实现个人收益与社会收益的一致。但是,在评判个人收益和社会收益的平衡关系时,往往是在某个特定的时间节点上,在特定的时间节点上,这两种收益的一致性很难保证,而且可能存在很大的差距。于是,是最终追求的长期结果一致还是确保过程中的严格一致,就成为从不同角度的研究所推崇和批判的依据,进而对这一观点提出质疑。 Traditional classical economics, based on the assumption of “rational man ”, explains almost all the most original motivations of possible behavior and also provides a way out for the future behavior of all social individuals. The trend of “avoiding disadvantages” has almost become the guarantee that all individuals will be able to operate effectively even if they lack coordination and coordination. This kind of behavioral-driven mechanism seems to be able to demonstrate universally applicable explanatory power when explaining completely independent individual behavior. The adjustment of market mechanism can realize the full flow of resources and thus optimize the allocation. If such analysis is to be placed on a long-term perspective, the social welfare can be maximized according to Adam Smith’s assertion. However, the idea of ​​maximizing social welfare merely presents a trend that the behavioral drive of “rational ” can promote the individual’s behavioral results toward the expected social benefits, and eventually achieve the conformity between personal benefits and social benefits. However, when judging the balance between personal income and social income, it is often difficult to guarantee the consistency of these two kinds of benefits at a specific time node, and there may be a large gap between them . Therefore, whether the long-term result ultimately pursued is consistent or the strict consistency ensured in the process becomes the basis for esteem and criticism from different angles of study, which in turn challenges this view.