Why economists often associate with other scholars silly X-nvidia geforce gt 740m

Why economists often associate with other scholars "silly X"? A few scholars talked yesterday, and one scholar said that he had participated in an activity to discuss the debt to equity swap, and the other people took the "debt to equity swap for economic development" as the premise to discuss how to operate. Only this scholar said that the debt to equity swap is not to let the people pay for the enterprise? Everybody argued. In the end, everyone says "silly X" instead of saying "silly". Like this, it’s very common inside the economic community. The results of the debate between the market economy and the government intervention group are often mutual "silly X"". Support the market economy will think: such a simple reason, how you can not make sense? The intervention will think, "what’s so simple about the world as you think?" The market is often out of order, don’t you know? Among the scholars of market economics and other disciplines, the "silly X" is more common. As a long war debate, I often say, "stupid."". And I know clearly, the other side of the heart must also look at me like this. Why does this happen? This is because people have different paradigms of thinking. The word "paradigm" is a little difficult to understand. One of the examples I’ve seen recently can be used to illustrate one side of the problem. "This is an addictive century," Yan Feng, a professor of Chinese language department at Fudan University, said in a few days ago at micro-blog…… What isn’t addictive? Reading is addictive, fry is addictive, it is addictive, the tiger will become addicted, square ball addiction, brush micro-blog addictive, Taobao is addictive, love is addictive… "… I was just thinking, this is the difference in thinking. What do I think about this passage? The so-called addiction is nothing but the utility of extreme preferences, and this must be every era is widespread, but the preferences of the content is not the same, not only this century is the century of addiction". But as the economy grows, people of this century are more able to pay, and people can show their preferences more clearly. I’ve been through Yan’s thinking stage, that is, there is no system framework, only intuitive to summarize a number of local characteristics from a lot of phenomena, and then feel that he has a major discovery. For example, from the stocks, slot machines, square dance summed up, "this is an addiction century."". With such a summary, there is often a "I found the characteristics of the times" deep sense, this so-called Wen qing. However, economic thinking has transformed these so-called "age characteristics" into a systematic framework. You say, "this is a century of addiction", you say, "this is an entertainment time to death", or in economics, is nothing more than utility word. The deep sense of separation disappears in a system framework. The analysis of utility is, of course, not impressive. This is not to say that economics does not pursue profundity. Economics, of course, pursues profundity, but it does not pursue the deep sense of separation, but pursues the profundity of the system. There is so much sense of separation that economics digests the deep sense of separation in order to save the cost of thinking. With your "addictive century", "the era of entertainment to death", or many other messy summaries, the use of utility analysis is all simplified. What’s the energy saved? To find more system laws. Than)

为何经济学者常和其他学者互道“傻X”? 文 邓新华 昨天几个人聊天,一学者说曾参加一个活动,讨论债转股,其他人都以“债转股有利经济发展”为前提,讨论怎么操作,只有这个学者说,债转股不就是让百姓为企业埋单吗?大家争论起来。最后大家心里互道“傻X”而别。 像这种场面,在经济学界内部很常见。市场经济派和政府干预派争论的结果经常是互道“傻X”。支持市场经济的会想:这么简单的道理,你们怎么就想不通?干预派会想:这世界哪有你们想的那么简单?市场经常失灵你们不知道吗? 而在市场经济派和其他学科的学者之间,互道“傻X”就更为常见了。作为久经争论大战的我,经常在心里道一声“太蠢了”。而我也清楚地知道,对方心里一定也是这么看我的。 为什么会发生这样的情况?这是因为大家的思维范式不同。范式这个词有点难让人懂。最近我看到的一个例子,倒是可以拿来说明问题的一个侧面。 前几天看到复旦大学中文系教授严锋在微博上说:“这是一个瘾的世纪……什么东西不是瘾呢?读书会上瘾,炒股会上瘾,搓麻会上瘾,老虎机会上瘾,广场舞会上瘾,刷微博会上瘾,淘宝会上瘾,爱情会上瘾……”我当时就想,这就是思维差异了。 我会怎么看这段话?所谓瘾,无非是效用上极为偏好,而这必然是每个时代都广为发生的,只不过偏好的内容不一样而已,不会只有这个世纪才是“瘾的世纪”。但是随着经济发展,这个世纪的人支付能力更强,人们可以在偏好上表现得更明显。 我也曾经历过严锋的思维阶段,那就是没有系统框架,仅凭直觉从一大堆现象中总结到一些局部特征,然后觉得自己有了重大发现。比如说,从炒股、老虎机、广场舞中总结出“这是一个瘾的世纪”。有了这样的总结,往往会有一种“我发现了时代的特征”的深刻感,此所谓文青。 然而经济学思维则把把这些所谓的“时代特征”都化到一个系统框架里。你说“这是个瘾的世纪”也好,你说“这是个娱乐至死的时代”也好,在经济学看来,无非就是效用一个词。那些分立的深刻感,在一个系统框架里,消失无踪了。效用分析当然就不让人感觉深刻了。 这不是说经济学就不追求深刻。经济学当然追求深刻,但它不追求那些分立的深刻感,而是追求系统的深刻。分立的深刻感太多了,经济学消化掉这些分立的深刻感,是为了节约思维运算的成本。管你“瘾的世纪”、“娱乐至死的时代”,或其他乱七八糟的好多总结,用效用分析全部简化掉了。节约下来的精力干什么?去发现更多的系统规律。比如产权规律,比如自然法的规律。张五常说,理论要简单,用简单理论才能解释复杂世界。张五常说的不仅是经济学的要求,也是其他学科的要求。 但是很多人,包括经济学内部的很多学者,不能理解这一点。比如文青就会觉得,你们老是用冷冰冰的经济学来分析,一点都不深刻,太没意思了;世界这么复杂,你们那点简单的经济学解释得了吗? 的确,经济学不能解释全部世界,但是它涉及的领域一定要简化的。而经济学和其他社会学科、也和文青有大量的重合,所以“经济学帝国主义”引起了他们的反感。我就看到一个被经济学消解掉深刻感的文青朋友,指责市场派是“市场原教旨主义”、“还原主义”。而在我看来,他们是只有深刻感,并无深刻。那是一种空洞的感觉。我经历过那个阶段,我知道那是什么感觉。 这种认识层次的不同,往往还表现为观点的直接冲突。 比如说到新劳动合同法,有些人就会说:“你们不要简单地反对新劳动合同法。我承认,劳动合同法在欧美有一些弊端,但你们没有认识到,中国并不是欧美那种发达的市场经济,工人处在弱势,当然要保护。”但其实,“不是发达的市场经济”、“工人处在弱势”,这些早已是被经济学的系统框架考虑过了的,考虑之后的结果仍然是,劳动合同法名为保护工人,实际对工人不利。 但是他们对这个系统框架不了解啊。他们会坚持认为,“不要跟我讲理论,你们没理解中国的深刻国情。傻X!” 好吧。 我有很多朋友,总是教我从这个角度、那个角度深刻地看问题。比如,“你说的逻辑是对的,但是呢,官员都是聪明人,道理他们懂,但他们这么做,有他们自己的考虑啊。”总之,他们老觉得有很多很多比经济学更深刻的东西,没有被我考虑进去。实际上呢,他们说的那些“深刻”,只是干扰思维的杂项,早就已经被经济学的系统框架消解掉了。 但是,无法让他们明白这一点。就像他们也迷惑,为何市场派老也明白不了他们的“深刻”。(原刊于公号:经济学告诉你A)相关的主题文章: