h********h
发帖数: 89 | 1 我看“朗咸平VS周其仁”
朗咸平的名字以前从来没有听说过，看他这阵子提出的观点，从我自己亲身的体会
来说，我觉得他说的是对的，但是我自己没有做过那些调查，不能下个定论，但我
看了他的publication后，我想他的确是一流的金融专家。
周其仁我一直很服，也在他手下做过研究，拿过他管的研究经费，但是我要说这次
周其仁的谈话比较失态。对朗咸平有明显的人身攻击，难怪左大陪说，现在看来朗
咸平的话是最温和的了。
左大陪说周其仁的话有硬伤，其实一个很大的硬伤没有指出来，就是周其仁的陈述
思路是这样的，最初听朗咸平发现他有个错，接下去再发现其他错，等等。而周其
仁说的第一个错“为什么小股东愿意加入股市接受被大股东欺骗?”其实根本就不
算错误,这只能反映周其仁对于金融文献对这方面的问题的论述根本不知道。
我写这个想法不会去谈争论的要点，我在国内的时候天天生活在产权学派的教育下
，自然而然觉得他们又道理，第一次知道林毅夫反对，主张“市场竞争”使得张维
迎离开CCER去了光华，还觉得林毅夫有点霸道，不过后来我对张维迎的印象也改变
了不少。他第一年在光华教书对学生指出他的错误很诚恳接受，后来就再也没有那 |
h********h
发帖数: 89 | 2 再多说几句关于“个人主义”与“集体主义”的区别。我必须承认，公有制下的改
革的确是前无古人的难事，我也没有发言权，但围绕改革背后的思想就很容易看出
这两个主义在中美之间的巨大差异，很多国内经济学家未必认识到了这一点。
我给个“个人主义”的最好例子吧。大家看《少数派报告》，里面那个预警系统牛
吧，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
底废除，在押犯人全部释放。警察们重新采取在那个年代落后的方法，也就是我们
这个时代的方法。
大家可能要说这只是电影，那我就说个现实的，利用指纹来断案很多年了，但是自
从发现了一例错判后，越来越多的美国学者对于这种具有99.99％准确性的方法提
出抨击，进而对许多流行的统计方法彻底否定。哪怕这个方法只是损害了一个人的
利益。
什么是集体主义？大家都再熟悉不过了。用到我们要讨论的问题上用周其仁的思路
来讲，就是改制中只要有一些企业搞得好，这个方法就应该坚持，搞不好的应该向
搞得好的学习。（用张维迎的话来说是有很多企业家是好的，用赵晓的思路来说是
国有资产总量增加了。）这种思路在集体主义的框架下没有什么错，但是大家要是
和上面的“个 |
f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 3 nice argument. I agree with you that zhou's criticism has its problem, but I
think larry lang is wrong when he said state-owned-enterprise can still be run
well. Privitaziation is still the right way i think. No doubt Lang is a first
class economist, at least in chinese circle. But his opinion is quite wrong
imho.
Still, I very much admire Lang's courage to fight openly against some
enterprenuer. This is much tougher than fighting against economists.
，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
主义。这些话让那
【在 h********h 的大作中提到】
: 再多说几句关于“个人主义”与“集体主义”的区别。我必须承认，公有制下的改
: 革的确是前无古人的难事，我也没有发言权，但围绕改革背后的思想就很容易看出
: 这两个主义在中美之间的巨大差异，很多国内经济学家未必认识到了这一点。
: 我给个“个人主义”的最好例子吧。大家看《少数派报告》，里面那个预警系统牛
: 吧，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
: 底废除，在押犯人全部释放。警察们重新采取在那个年代落后的方法，也就是我们
: 这个时代的方法。
: 大家可能要说这只是电影，那我就说个现实的，利用指纹来断案很多年了，但是自
: 从发现了一例错判后，越来越多的美国学者对于这种具有99.99％准确性的方法提
: 出抨击，进而对许多流行的统计方法彻底否定。哪怕这个方法只是损害了一个人的
|
z*i
发帖数: 58873 | 4 I think both sides should provide empirical analysis to back their arguments.
Anyway, argument is not for argument per se. It is for better understanding
and doing the better thing accordingly.
Economics is based on individualism, that is one of the basic assumptions.
However, that does not exclude economists from providing policy suggestions to
overcome individualism and its bad aspects. So "经济学是最讲究“个人主义”的"
does not necessarily means that this is the most efficient and fair outcome
based on. I
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: nice argument. I agree with you that zhou's criticism has its problem, but I
: think larry lang is wrong when he said state-owned-enterprise can still be run
: well. Privitaziation is still the right way i think. No doubt Lang is a first
: class economist, at least in chinese circle. But his opinion is quite wrong
: imho.
: Still, I very much admire Lang's courage to fight openly against some
: enterprenuer. This is much tougher than fighting against economists.
:
: ，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
: 主义。这些话让那
|
h********h
发帖数: 89 | 5 Surely I agree with you. In fact, we should teach two simple concepts to most
Chinese economists, positive and normative.
run
first
吧
体
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: nice argument. I agree with you that zhou's criticism has its problem, but I
: think larry lang is wrong when he said state-owned-enterprise can still be run
: well. Privitaziation is still the right way i think. No doubt Lang is a first
: class economist, at least in chinese circle. But his opinion is quite wrong
: imho.
: Still, I very much admire Lang's courage to fight openly against some
: enterprenuer. This is much tougher than fighting against economists.
:
: ，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
: 主义。这些话让那
|
h********h
发帖数: 89 | 6 right. Most Chinese economists either have no assumption behind their argument
or have too many inconsistent assumptions, or they do not understand their
foreign counterparts' assumptions.
arguments.
to
的"
I
wrong
【在 z*i 的大作中提到】
: I think both sides should provide empirical analysis to back their arguments.
: Anyway, argument is not for argument per se. It is for better understanding
: and doing the better thing accordingly.
: Economics is based on individualism, that is one of the basic assumptions.
: However, that does not exclude economists from providing policy suggestions to
: overcome individualism and its bad aspects. So "经济学是最讲究“个人主义”的"
: does not necessarily means that this is the most efficient and fair outcome
: based on. I
|
f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 7 lang has some case studies, though zhou and others dont have much material to
spt.
More importantly, I think this is an academic debate per se, but they all are
to keen to get media involved. Kind of sad story.【 在 zli (我要努力·我要上进
) 的大作中提到: 】
arguments.
to
的"
I
wrong |
n****e
发帖数: 135 | 8 I disagree with you on comments on Lang's idea.
I think as long as property right (no matter state-owned or individual-owned)
is defined the firm can be run well. France has a lot of good examples. Note:
common property is inefficient, however, state-owned is not common property if
there is a strict supervising board.
But based on current Chinese legal system, I think privatization is more
efficient than state-owned. However, the way to privatize should be fair and
more intelectually complicated
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: nice argument. I agree with you that zhou's criticism has its problem, but I
: think larry lang is wrong when he said state-owned-enterprise can still be run
: well. Privitaziation is still the right way i think. No doubt Lang is a first
: class economist, at least in chinese circle. But his opinion is quite wrong
: imho.
: Still, I very much admire Lang's courage to fight openly against some
: enterprenuer. This is much tougher than fighting against economists.
:
: ，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
: 主义。这些话让那
|
f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 9
as long as property right (no matter state-owned or individual-owned)
This is the problem and a big IF. The simple reason why most, if not all, soes
fail is that private owner has much more incentive to monitor manager. In
China, we have came up thousands of different ideas, methods, to cure soes'
problem. Did it ever work? No. Why? Simply that nobody, or few cares!
This is a real world, not an ideal world as we thought. Good will doesnt lead
to good ends.
the firm can be run well.
France has a
【在 n****e 的大作中提到】
: I disagree with you on comments on Lang's idea.
: I think as long as property right (no matter state-owned or individual-owned)
: is defined the firm can be run well. France has a lot of good examples. Note:
: common property is inefficient, however, state-owned is not common property if
: there is a strict supervising board.
: But based on current Chinese legal system, I think privatization is more
: efficient than state-owned. However, the way to privatize should be fair and
: more intelectually complicated
|
t*****e
发帖数: 224 | 10 不能同意你把“集体主义”扣到凯恩斯头上。凯恩斯主义者从来不认为集体利益高于个人
，从来不认为“通胀比失业危险”，相反，他们认为可以通过引入通胀以实现低失业。提
倡小政府、个人选择自由的新经典主义者，相反，认为失业是正常的，认为经济危机是正
常的，货币政策无效，财政政策浪费。
把“集体主义”扣到凯恩斯头上，是极右经济学家反共过头的表现。在三四十年代拯救资
本主义的，决不是那些鼓吹政府束手旁观的经典自由主义者，而恰恰是凯恩斯的积极财政
政策。
【在 h********h 的大作中提到】
: 再多说几句关于“个人主义”与“集体主义”的区别。我必须承认，公有制下的改
: 革的确是前无古人的难事，我也没有发言权，但围绕改革背后的思想就很容易看出
: 这两个主义在中美之间的巨大差异，很多国内经济学家未必认识到了这一点。
: 我给个“个人主义”的最好例子吧。大家看《少数派报告》，里面那个预警系统牛
: 吧，可是因为最后发现一个头头利用这个系统伤害了两个人，最后的结局是系统彻
: 底废除，在押犯人全部释放。警察们重新采取在那个年代落后的方法，也就是我们
: 这个时代的方法。
: 大家可能要说这只是电影，那我就说个现实的，利用指纹来断案很多年了，但是自
: 从发现了一例错判后，越来越多的美国学者对于这种具有99.99％准确性的方法提
: 出抨击，进而对许多流行的统计方法彻底否定。哪怕这个方法只是损害了一个人的
|
e****d
发帖数: 44 | 11 Academy of Management 正准备出一期关于corporate corruption的。当然，概念的定义
也许起点就不一样
还有，我最近一直想做一个题目，就是国有企业高管的大规模腐败的开始，和经济
学家的谆谆教诲之间的关系有多大？（其实这个题目在西方也值得做，问题要改成
企业高管的在职消费和当年他们上MBA在Corporate Finance上学到这个概念的关系
有多大）一个猜测是，九十年代初期经济学家给国有企业高管讲述Corporate
Finance中的“在职消费”“代理成本”“X非效率”这类概念的时候，一定让一些
曾经洁身自好的高管回去后晚上睡不着觉了。
【在 h********h 的大作中提到】
: right. Most Chinese economists either have no assumption behind their argument
: or have too many inconsistent assumptions, or they do not understand their
: foreign counterparts' assumptions.
:
: arguments.
: to
: 的"
: I
: wrong
|
