by:郑也夫
Zheng Yefu note: Xiaomin brother from the Internet to see this article. Has always been a catalyst for mutual respect for all. Very grateful for this article. I already know that I and some of the ideological gap between economists, but this article told me that I thought the gap ratio is much greater. I am really surprised: Why is not difficult these ideas can not enter their thinking, Xiaomin brother can not seem to touch my logic. Xiaomin brother and I Fan Gang said that the controversy linked to the book, said: "This is the style."That is an argument I won (note that I am referring to the controversy, not on the road to social choice) It also doubt it »
As early as in Cardiff and also Fan Gang debate on the issue of cars, I am also a husband Don Quixote style. I understand the style of Don Quixote is the integrity and full of idealism, but outdated. "After the arrival of material desires,"and this is the style. This is also the husband of the new book is on consumer issues, as the influence of the traditional mainstream economics, and two of his core point of view, consumer What is the purpose and the relationship between wealth and happiness, I beg to differ. According to the standard definition of economics, consumption is the use of resources to meet the needs and desires of the process. The purpose is to satisfy consumer needs and desires, that is, access to effective, broad point is that in order to enjoy that pleasure and happiness can be. Cardiff also criticized the happy philosophy, the purpose is to consumer comfort, Niubi and stimulating. I really do not see these three goals and pleasures between what is essentially the difference. Access to material comfort is met, Niubi is the pride of the meet, is to stimulate the spirit of access to the enjoyment, such as extreme sports, and so on. These are all different forms of enjoyment or happy »enjoyment or pleasure from the material, from the spirit. Economists said the effectiveness, and so on, including the husband also mentioned three objectives. The pursuit of happiness or well-being is a human nature, with a happy philosophy of human nature, what is wrong with, to criticize »Cardiff also said that a society or a food and clothing to meet people, wealth and happiness will be of no relationship between the. According to this logic, we are also seeking food and clothing after the well-off, the middle class, the rich do it »Under normal circumstances, people pursue wealth increased, social pursuit of GDP growth is correct, because the human society is in the process progress, and people enjoy More rich material and spiritual enjoyment. I also called Don Quixote-fu-style idealists. He consumption and happiness of the minority is applicable. This world is indeed a handful of people, or by religious influence, or have some ideals, or is too rich, so despised material enjoyment, the spirit of the pursuit of pure enjoyment, even when the Ku Xingseng proud of. But this too few people. I think the vast majority of people still, but also criticism from the husband happy philosophy, or to negate the core issue of wealth and happiness, the relationship between the critical material desires. I admit that money does not necessarily happy, a country's GDP growth will not bring the people's happiness, a wealthy people are not necessarily happy people. But I think that wealth is still the foundation of happiness, no money will definitely not happy. A low per capita GDP of the country, people can not be said comfortable, not looking for stimulation, even a poor life no law that stimulate much less. To the pursuit of wealth through hard work, seeking more enjoyment in life. Economics for the consumer response to this theory is generally the case. That applies to the theory of a small number of people, can talk about, but no practical significance. Remember the 1970s, U.S. economists have advocated people-meters to lead a medieval rural life-style, against the economic growth. Now 30 years have passed, which country, a practice which people do «m-even this person have been forgotten. Although I do not agree with the basic viewpoints of husband also, but still think this is a book worth reading. The orthodox view can not unify the world, can not be suspected. Therefore, I give this book's back cover written evaluation is: "new perspectives, ideas unique. ~ ~ Unique novel"does not mean that right, but it "can not read."Moreover, Zheng Yefu of attitude is extremely strict and serious like this one is the actual business of learning the "Giant Panda"level, a very rare. "
original link:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49ccddcf010099i8.html
No comments:
Post a Comment