y****p
发帖数: 19 | 1 每次比如兴建国家大剧院，火箭上天，培养运动员，或者别的一些
一些政府的“奢侈”行为出现的时候，总有人说，把这些钱用到农
村去办小学多好啊，那么多儿童都还挨饿呢。。。
我总是觉得那样的观点有问题，但具体又想不出为啥。。。
各位学经济的能不能从经济学角度告诉我，那样是有利于国家经济
发展，还是不利？ 谢谢！ | t*****e
发帖数: 224 | 2 这要看人的价值观，是一个国家的面子重要，还是每个老百姓的生计重要。如果觉得后者
重要，那样的观点一点问题都没有。
如果要“精确”的算一下，可以把国家的面子写进representative的utility，然后optim
ize，看看究竟该把钱花在哪儿。人越是爱国，爱得子女上学都可以不顾，越会在国家面子
上舍得投入。
一些政府的“奢侈”行为出现的时候，总有人说，把这些钱用到农
村去办小学多好啊，那么多儿童都还挨饿呢。。。
我总是觉得那样的观点有问题，但具体又想不出为啥。。。
各位学经济的能不能从经济学角度告诉我，那样是有利于国家经济
发展，还是不利？ 谢谢！
【在 y****p 的大作中提到】
: 每次比如兴建国家大剧院，火箭上天，培养运动员，或者别的一些
: 一些政府的“奢侈”行为出现的时候，总有人说，把这些钱用到农
: 村去办小学多好啊，那么多儿童都还挨饿呢。。。
: 我总是觉得那样的观点有问题，但具体又想不出为啥。。。
: 各位学经济的能不能从经济学角度告诉我，那样是有利于国家经济
: 发展，还是不利？ 谢谢！
| U*****e
发帖数: 2882 | 3 政府也是人开的，是人都不想让功劳落到别人头上。这些大项目和搞教育比起来有一个特
点，就是花钱的是中央政府，得名得利的也是中央政府。中国的普及性教育投资很大程度
上是由地方财政负担，到时候功劳算在谁头上都搞不清，中央政府作为合伙人的积极性不
会很大。
这是公共选择理论，或者远一点产权理论（其实本质上一回事）的话题。我觉得可以用来
解释教育投资不足的现象。不要说小学，很长时间了，在同一个城市，同样是重点大学，
即使隶属于中央的甲大学潜力更大，得到的投资还不如隶属于地方或者部委的乙大学。
另外还可以解释教育投资不足的原因，我想和地方官员是由上级（省，自治区）选拔而不
是地方选举产生有关。对于上级领导，办教育毕竟周期长见效慢，不如盖工厂造大楼。这
个牵涉到委托代理理论。
还有一个可能的原因是户籍制度，如果一个地方因为过于贫穷而无法顾及教育，那么至少
有些人口可以流动到有学校的地方去。学校一旦成规模，多收两个学生不是大问题。但是
户籍的限制提高了流动的成本，至少导致出现了学校凭户口多收费的现象，这应该算是一
种行政垄断，所以妨碍了公平也妨碍了效率。
【在 y****p 的大作中提到】
: 每次比如兴建国家大剧院，火箭上天，培养运动员，或者别的一些
: 一些政府的“奢侈”行为出现的时候，总有人说，把这些钱用到农
: 村去办小学多好啊，那么多儿童都还挨饿呢。。。
: 我总是觉得那样的观点有问题，但具体又想不出为啥。。。
: 各位学经济的能不能从经济学角度告诉我，那样是有利于国家经济
: 发展，还是不利？ 谢谢！
| c********y
发帖数: 98 | 4 I don't know which one is more worthwhile, holding olypmics or increasing educ
ational expenditure. It obviously depends on how the social welfare function i
s like. But why would you say that olympics involves only costs, and no benefi
ts? Improving Beijing's air quality and transportation facilities, for example
, is obviously a big cost, but it provides lots of benefits as well, and long
term benefits. And if the beijing olympics is run well (although I'm not
so sure about this point), it may | t*****e
发帖数: 224 | 5
It doesn't depend on the social welfare function, which is nothing but a
weighted sum of individual utilities. The preference has to enter individual
utility functions, and, in equilibrium, the utility of the representative
agent. If we use social welfare function, we have to create an individual
called "the nation". For regimes like Nazi or Soviet Union, the weight given
to "the nation" would be understandably huge. Anyway, it is not the usual
practice of economics.
I think the original ques
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: I don't know which one is more worthwhile, holding olypmics or increasing educ
: ational expenditure. It obviously depends on how the social welfare function i
: s like. But why would you say that olympics involves only costs, and no benefi
: ts? Improving Beijing's air quality and transportation facilities, for example
: , is obviously a big cost, but it provides lots of benefits as well, and long
: term benefits. And if the beijing olympics is run well (although I'm not
: so sure about this point), it may
| c********y
发帖数: 98 | 6 1. why would the social welfare function simply be a weighted average of indiv
idual welfares? Well, of course I'm not an economist so I must be very ignoran
t in this. But it seems the Samuelson-Bergeson social welfare function that I
know a (tiny) bit about is open to all sorts of aggregations of individual uti
lities. Indeed, it seems to me that if the proper social welfare function is j
ust a weighted average of individual welfares, then governing a society would
be so simple, and the societ
【在 t*****e 的大作中提到】
:
: It doesn't depend on the social welfare function, which is nothing but a
: weighted sum of individual utilities. The preference has to enter individual
: utility functions, and, in equilibrium, the utility of the representative
: agent. If we use social welfare function, we have to create an individual
: called "the nation". For regimes like Nazi or Soviet Union, the weight given
: to "the nation" would be understandably huge. Anyway, it is not the usual
: practice of economics.
: I think the original ques
| c********y
发帖数: 98 | 7 Most people here have been arguing from the perspective of efficiency or cost-
effectiveness, and your argument (rich people's money vs poor people's money)
is from the fairness/justice perspective. That's a very good alternative persp
ective. (If we can find a proper social welfare function, then these two persp
ectives can be united in one framework, but unfortunately we are not God so we
don't know what the proper social welfare function should be).
Your specific argument itself, however, hav
【在 y****p 的大作中提到】
: 每次比如兴建国家大剧院，火箭上天，培养运动员，或者别的一些
: 一些政府的“奢侈”行为出现的时候，总有人说，把这些钱用到农
: 村去办小学多好啊，那么多儿童都还挨饿呢。。。
: 我总是觉得那样的观点有问题，但具体又想不出为啥。。。
: 各位学经济的能不能从经济学角度告诉我，那样是有利于国家经济
: 发展，还是不利？ 谢谢！
| c********y
发帖数: 98 | 8 I think the "face" issue here is actually more profound than the brand name of
a commercial product. I'm talking about this with a view of China's national
mentality/psychy.
We have been a psychologically very unhealthy nation for a long time, due to t
he terrible and turbulent experiences of the past one and half century. As a r
esult, many Chinese (we included) have a "superiority-complex and inferiority
status" problem: at the bottom of our heart we think we are a great nation, bu
t in realit | t*****e
发帖数: 224 | 9 I should add that China can become a decent country and hence
cure its "mental" problem only by becoming a member of the
mainstream international community, specificly, the civilized
world traditionally composed of western liberal democracies.
But to become such a member, we should achieve more in areas of
substance like education, social security, protection of human
rights, etc.
Building fancy buildings in Beijing, training some athelete
stars, and things like these, simply do not help. They a
【在 c********y 的大作中提到】
: I think the "face" issue here is actually more profound than the brand name of
: a commercial product. I'm talking about this with a view of China's national
: mentality/psychy.
: We have been a psychologically very unhealthy nation for a long time, due to t
: he terrible and turbulent experiences of the past one and half century. As a r
: esult, many Chinese (we included) have a "superiority-complex and inferiority
: status" problem: at the bottom of our heart we think we are a great nation, bu
: t in realit
|
|
