中国经济到了最危险的时刻!
周天勇
19世纪末20世纪初的中国在政治上遭到了西方列强的瓜分,20世纪末2
1世纪初的中国在经济上再次遭到了西方列强的瓜分。所不同的只是19世纪
末20世纪初,西方列强是用各种条约瓜分了我们,现在西方列强则是用各种
规则在瓜分我们。中国被瓜分的主要标志,就是正在成为西方发达国家随意挤
压的“奶牛”,身上被国际垄断资本插满了财富吸管,用断子绝孙的资源毁灭
式开发,所透支形成的巨大财富,如同长江大河般的流向西方发达国家,提高
了西方发达国家的生活水平,带动了整个世界经济的增长,却唯独牺牲了中国
人民的福利,不仅是牺牲了这一代人的福利,更可怕的是掏空了子孙后代的资
源基础。可以说,用牺牲子孙后代资源基础的办法,来换取一代人的富足,已
经是一种犯罪了,更何况这种资源的毁灭式发展,连这一代中国人都没有享受
到,完全被这一代西方人给消耗掉了。
这就是为什么同样约30年的经济起飞,日本工资赶上了美国,中国工资却只
有美国3%的原因,这就是为什么掌握了70%财富的 0.02%(最新统
计)的人口拼命向国外转移财产和亲属的原因,这就是为什么在经济高速增长
过程中,人民会重新陷入“三座大山”压迫的原因。并且国际垄断资本对中国
已经做好了奶挤干净后的杀牛准备,这就是通过金融市场股市和汇市的对冲操
作,将中国最后的剩余资产全部卷走。
一、就经济总量来看,被称为世界经济发动机的中国,用自己的资源、环境和
国民健康,为西方国家贡献了惊人的财富增长。以至于总共九届的财富论坛,
有三届在中国召开。中国已经连续四年,以仅占全球4%的GDP总量拉动了
全球经济增长的15%,四年为世界贡献的GDP总量约1.5万亿美元,相
当于12万亿人民币,按照去年全国工资水平计算,相当于全国城镇职工6年
多的工资总额。中国对世界经济贡献之大,从世界资源价格的疯狂上涨中反映
的最为明显,这些年由于中国进口导致世界矿产品价格以年均70%的幅度上
涨,世界海运价格更是以年均170%的幅度疯狂上涨,中国进口产品价格的
疯狂上涨,和中国出口产品价格的疯狂下跌,已经成为世界经济发展史上最不
可思议的怪异现象。中国对亚洲的贡献更是让人惊叹,亚洲地区出口增长的1
00%来自中国,正是中国推动亚洲经济走出了1998年金融危机时的困
境,特别是亚洲经济大国日本,进入21世纪以来对中国出口一直保持两位数
增长,约占日本出口增加额的70%,日本自己也承认“对华贸易支撑着日本
以出口为主导的经济恢复”,是日本摆脱危机泥潭,经济恢复繁荣的一个主要
原因。
可是,经济发展是有代价的,天下没有免费的午餐,对世界、亚洲包括日本经
济做出巨大贡献的代价,就是中国资源和环境的巨大灾难性破坏。百分之八十
的江河湖泊断流枯竭,三分之二的草原沙化,绝大部分森林消失,近乎百分之
百的土壤板结。据日本海关统计,十多年来,每年中国出口日本的筷子,就要
砍伐200多万棵树,10年中国出口日本的方便筷子总计约2243亿双,
中国林业专家计算,为生产这些筷子而毁灭的山林面积占中国的国土面积的2
0%以上。在资源消失的同时,生存环境面临着越来越大的威胁。中国三分之
一的国土已被酸雨污染,主要水系的五分之二已成为劣五类水,3亿多农村人
口喝不到安全的水,4亿多城市居民呼吸着严重污染的空气,1500万人因
此得上支气管炎和呼吸道癌症,世界银行报告列举的世界污染最严重的20个
城市中,中国占了16个。全国668座城市三分之二被垃圾包围,这些垃圾
不但扩大着农田占用面积,更加威胁着基本生存环境, 在自己的垃圾因不能处
理而越积越多的情况下,却还在大肆进口西方发达国家的垃圾,中国已成为西
方发达国家倾倒垃圾的垃圾场,美国对华出口三大物品之一就是垃圾,并且是
美国对华出口增长最快的物品,南方一些垃圾进口地区的动物已经完全灭绝,
植物严重变异,人的健康状况日益恶化,一些地区甚至多年没有一个体检合格
的应征入伍者。即便单纯算眼前的经济账,其损失也是相当惊人的,仅200
3年中国环境污染和生态破坏造成的经济损失,就占当年GDP的15%,我
们在为世界经济增长贡献15%的同时,却是我们自己每年扣除15%。
不仅自然环境恶化,社会环境同样恶化,1979年到2003年,每万人刑
事案件由5.5件增加至34.1件,增加了6 倍,以年均7% 的速度递
增,如果再考虑到立案标准的不断降低,差别更为悬殊;社会死亡率不断上
升,每10万人死亡数由1979年的4.4人增加至10.6 人,以年均
3.5的速度递增;2003年卫生部公布的传染病发病率比上年上升6.7
%,死亡率上升了37%。中国人从原来不知道防盗门窗为何物,到现在防盗
窗已安装到了楼房的七层以上;由于流氓遍地防不胜防,全国企业早已不再安
排女工上下夜班;有毒食品已经100%的覆盖了全部行业,每天人们咽进肚
子里的食物究竟是什么,只有天知晓;性早熟现象已经蔓延到了学龄前儿童,
未来的身体和寿命可想而知;约2000万少女被迫卖淫,创造的收入占GD
P总量的6%,相当于一万多亿人民币,这种肉体积累是世界历史上除日本之
外绝无仅有的现象;中国人的平均身高比日本人低了2.5公分,由以前低头
看日本人到现在抬头看日本人,小日本真的成了“大日本”;《参考消息》报
道,中国每亿元GDP工伤死亡1人,2003年死亡达13.6万人,以此
推算,今年工伤死亡人数将达到20 万, “是名副其实的带血GDP”,其
实这个死亡数字不过是冰山一角,能够统计到的死亡数字,要么是国有企业,
要么是死人较多的特大事故,私企和外企平常死个把人根本到不了统计部门,
而私企和外企用工数量远远超过国有企业,如果考虑到这个因素,每年死亡人
数至少相当于一场南京大屠杀。
二、就外贸来看,中国向西方发达国家惊人的财富“输血”,已经使中国在经
济上落入最悲惨的殖民地状态。中国出口产品价格之低近乎白给,历史上除了
当初白种人到非洲猎获黑人不付钱之外,还没有任何一个殖民地被贸易掠夺到
这个程度。对照一下外贸和发达国家市场价格就会发现,外贸利润的95%以
上被外商拿走了,去年我国出口177亿件服装,平均每件服装的价格仅为3
.51美元,平均每双鞋的价格不到2.5美元;在美国市场上流行的芭比娃
娃的价格是10美元,中国苏州企业所得仅0.35美元;罗技公司每年向美
国运送2000万个“中国制造”的鼠标,这些鼠标在美国的售价大约为40
美元,中国从每个鼠标中仅能得到3美元,而且工人工资、电力、交通和其他
经常开支全都包括在这3美元里。我们就是用这不到5%的利润,积累了一万
亿美元的外汇储备,意味着我们同时为国际垄断资本贡献了20万亿美元,相
当于160 万亿人民币,几乎是全国80年的工资总额。
在中国入世五周年的当天,中央电视台反复播报,中国入世五年来为美国家庭
节省了五分之一的生活费用,美国摩根士丹利公司的调查也显示,美国消费者
因购买中国廉价产品而节省下来的金钱高达1000亿美元。日本人因为买中
国筷子比洗筷子还便宜而用过就扔,同样因为太便宜,早已不烧煤的日本却每
年从中国进口2000多万吨煤炭用来填海,变成人造煤矿储备能源。中国潮
水般涌入西方发达国家的廉价一次性商品,虽然毁灭的是中国资源, 却连西方
国家一些有良知的人都被震撼了,纷纷呼吁改变一次性消费,并衷告中国要保
护资源。外贸利润的绝大部分被外商拿走了,在中国经营的企业更是对工人敲
骨吸髓的降低成本,“富士康事件”发生后,美国苹果公司和英国金融时报先
后来中国的调查显示,富士康公司15万打工妹每天工作15小时以上,月工
资不足50美元,还不到美国同类工人2小时的工资,就是这点儿工资能不能
按时拿到,都是个未知数,如此低的工资已经把现代社会的工人完全变成了奴
隶社会的奴隶,绝大部分打工妹打工仔之所以能够在几乎白干的情况下坚持下
来,是因为他们梦想着有朝一日能变成城市人口。
对他们来讲,白干不可怕,可怕的是伤残。被外商拿走95%以上利润的老
板,根本不可能支付劳动保护费用,伤残便成为工人最可怕的噩梦了。据志愿
者曾飞扬的调查,作为中国出口基地的珠江三角洲,每年仅冲床工人发生的断
指事故至少就有3万宗,被机器切断的手指头超过4万个。这还是在机器设备
中占比例极小的冲床事故,其它绝大部分机器设备造成的工伤事故有多少,是
一个永远不为人知的数字,当地政府部门为了维护社会稳定,决定不再做工伤
事故统计。不过此前对深圳800万民工的调查显示,每五个人中就有一人受
过工伤或患过职业病,深圳有的厂家两年就换一茬工人。为了防止伤残工人打
官司影响经济效益和社会稳定,珠江三角洲一些地区把外来民工正常的诉讼时
间拉长达到三年以上,迫使伤残民工因耗费不起钱财只能放弃权益,回农村了
此残生。滚滚珠江水,流的都是民工的血和泪啊。
谈到民工的代价,让人不能不想起震惊世界的中国矿难,2001年到200
5年,全国煤矿死亡10人以上的矿难平均每周一次,中国每年出口8000
万吨煤炭的代价,就是每年平均死亡6000多人,相当于每天死亡近17
人,这还是政府部门的统计数字,实际死亡人数肯定远远超过这个数字,即便
按照这个统计到的数字,中国每百万吨煤的死亡率是美国的100倍,是俄罗
斯和印度的10倍,死亡率位居世界之首,死亡人数超过世界其它各国的总
和。在无数死难矿工如山的骨灰之上,堆起了国际垄断资本的滚滚利润和中国
矿主的惊人财富,今年北京国际车展上,一位擦着鼻涕的矿主要买几百万一辆
的法拉利轿车,当车模小姐告诉他这车很贵时,这位矿主“啪”的鼻涕一甩,
指着车模小姐喊道:“开个价吧,连你一起买走”,最终几位矿主从车展上买
走了80多辆法拉利轿车。这种极度扭曲会的资本家,包括殖民地的统治者,
都不可能出现,只有殖民地经济的“二狗子”才会扭曲到如此地步。
三、就外汇来看,中国用民工的如河血泪和矿工的如山骨灰,换来的巨额外汇
完全无偿的奉献给了美国。面对中国空前的资源劫难和百姓劫难,中国主流经
济学家却是一片欢呼,声称我们赚取了宝贵外汇。我们的确拥有了一万亿美元
的外汇储备,但是这些外汇储备与其说是中国的宝贵财富,不如说是美国的宝
贵财富更加准确。一方面,一万亿外汇的三分之二以上都是美元资产。美元是
什么,说穿了就是美国印刷厂印刷的纸张,美国想印多少就可印多少,随着美
元印刷的增加和美国经济的减弱,中国血汗换来的外汇在随着美元大幅贬值,
用欧元计算的美元资产,几年来已经贬值50%,中国外汇储备中7000多
亿美元蒸发掉了一半,蒸发的购买力相当于中国去年全国的工资收入,今年按
人民币计算的外汇储备又蒸发掉6%,相当于600亿美元,超过了全国医疗
教育养老资金的总和;另一方面,我们外汇储备的绝大部分都是购买的美国国
债,过去动员人民有句话,叫做“购买国债支援国家建设”,现在我们则是通
过购买美国国债来填补美国财政赤字, 用巨额外汇储备平抑美国物价,降低美
国人的生活费用,支援美国国家建设。
不仅如此,美国代表的西方发达国家反过来又以我们贸易顺差的巨额外汇为理
由,压迫人民币升值,并勾结国内买办集团,用外汇储备的大幅度贬值,来要
挟中国政府高价进口西方国家产品。中国进口商品价格之高,同出口商品价格
之低,同样令人震惊。中国进口高档轿车价格,高出海外市场价格两倍以上,
劳斯莱斯“幻影”型系列的海外零售价约四十万美元,但在中国的成交价格达
到了数百万,就在不久前,北京一位房地产开发商以二百多万美元,买走了一
辆劳斯莱斯最昂贵的“幻影”型轿车。进口中档轿车价格也高于海外市场一倍
左右。进口化妆品和奢侈品的价格,更是高的离谱,简直就是公开抢钱,中国
南方奢侈品展览会上,一件翡翠首饰价格高达8000万人民币,随后举办的
上海第二届奢侈品展览会,四天成交额就超过5亿元人民币。世界奢侈品公司
正在潮水般涌入中国,各地开设的店面已超过300家,许多国外地摊上的廉
价货也拿到中国当高档商品卖,价格上千元的法国干红,在当地不过是地铁乞
丐都经常喝的驱寒饮料。拥有知识产权的进口产品价格更是邪乎,微软W98
操作系统美国上市价格是50美元,相当于400多人民币,不到一个蓝领工
人2小时的工资,拿到中国来卖6999元人民币,相当于北京工人14个月
的工资,深圳民工20个月的工资,后来的XP操作系统的捆绑价格更是达到了
65000元人民币,这还是有庞大盗版市场的牵制,如果没有盗版市场的牵
制,其垄断价格足以让中国95%以上的用户退出电脑领域,中国的信息化水
平至少要倒退20年。
西方发达国家雇佣中国买办集团和主流经济学家,已经成功建立了一个让中国
高价进低价出、自己低价进高价出的贸易和外汇体制。通过这个体制,越来越
大量的把中国的环境资源和国民健康,转化为西方发达国家的廉价商品,从而
使包括日本在内的发达国家随着资源耗费量的增加,不仅没有恶化本国环境,
反倒是越来越山清水秀,西方发达国家借助于中国的买办集团,已经成功实现
了经济收益和经济代价之间的分离,自己享有经济增长的收益,让中国来承担
发展的不良后果。这种向中国剥离发展风险的体制,在人民币汇率和购买力的
矛盾走势上也明显表现出来,与美元对外对内一起贬值不同,人民币是对美元
汇率升值,对国内的购买力是贬值,这一升一贬其实是把中国老百姓的钱转移
到外国老板的腰包里了。
四、就外资来看,中国一方面用巨额过剩资本支援美国经济建设,另一方面又
以牺牲国家资源甚至主权的方式,大规模引进外资,外资经济已成为西方发达
国家全面控制中国的经济基础。在全球化的条件下,外资进入中国本身是一种
正常经济现象,但是我们引进外资的方式,却正在形成中华民族的历史性灾
难。
首先,外资经济已成为掠夺中国财富的巨大吸管。我国利用外资占GDP的比
重已超过40%,外资企业占全国进出口总值的55.48%,已远远超过许
多经济外向型国家的外资比重,截至2005年底,我国实际使用外国资金额
为6224.05亿美元,根据世界银行的估计,流入发展中国家的外商直接
投资所获得的年平均利润率高达16%~18%,由此估算,2005年外商
就从中国赚走了1000多亿美元的利润。世界银行根据发展中国家的一般利
润率计算出的这个数字,显然和实际数字相差甚远,因为外资在中国享有的免
税、廉价土地、超低价劳动力,以及各种收益,是在其他发展中国家没有的。
中国的外资利润率有多高,这是个官方和外资公司都列为高度机密的数字,我
们只能从各种渠道进行比较测算,中国垄断行业的利润率是100% 至200
0%,外资经济的利润率一般不会低于国内垄断行业,许多外资公司也印证了
这个推断。美国摩根斯坦利公司由于内讧,爆出的内幕是在中国的利润率达9
00%。我们权且按照垄断行业最低100%的利润率计算,外资经济每年在
中国获取的利润应该在4万亿人民币以上,相当于全国2年以上的工资总额。
其次,外资进入中国已经不再是主要投资建设项目,而是官商勾结大肆低价收
购国有资产。这是一场有计划有预谋的民族大劫杀,第一步是“减二免三”的
免税待遇,这是世界上绝无仅有的“超国民待遇”,免税政策赋予了外资公司
轻松打垮国有企业的能力。而与此同时,国有企业不仅负担33%(最早是3
8%)的沉重税负,还要负担职工的福利保障,与不纳税不养工人的外资企业
竞争,亏损失败的结局已经注定。第二步就是逼迫走投无路的国有企业实行“
减员增效”,甩掉6000万职工,如同占有一个妇女之前先让她丢掉孩子一
样,剥离出一个干干净净的资产,坐等外资公司前来吞并。
第三步就是廉价收购,以极其低廉的价格甚至零价方式大肆收购核心产业大公
司或各个行业的龙头公司,外资收购已经使中国本土制造业在工业增加值中的
比重降低到了26.5%。并且收购价格之低,远远突破了经济大危机后的资
产收购价格,在公开资本市场上收购价格不到资本价值的5%。比如以强大国
内银行网络为支持的银行系基金管理公司,把三分之一的股权以每股1元的价
格卖给了外资公司,外资公司投入不过几千万,一年后不算资本增殖,仅每年
就所得利润就有上亿元。
在金融不良,外资公司所得更是惊人,前面提到的美国摩根斯坦利公司,就是
在和国家四大资产管理公司之一的华融公司的合作过程中,创造了900%的
利润率,并且形成了举世闻名的“华融模式”。其实目前银行拿出的4万亿金
融不良资产,其中相当一部分都是外资公司凭借免税政策,打垮国有企业后形
成的,等于是先打死别人的丈夫再白白占有别人的身子。可悲的是最终我们不
仅是4万亿金融不良资产会白白落入外资手中,还要再为这落入外资公司的4
万亿不良资产另外买单。道理很简单,许多不良资产在我们手上是不良资产,
到了外国人手上就不是不良资产了,外国人很懂得中国“官怕洋人”的道理,
他们会通过打官司的办法,逼迫地方政府从中国再划走4万亿资产。
第三,目前外资对中国的扫荡不仅是掠夺经济资源,已经开始了对中国政治资
源的瓦解和毁坏。由于外资在扫荡过程中形成了地方政府巨大的GDP政绩,
再加上官员个人的巨大利益,便形成了各地政府对外资的疯狂争夺,给外资的
优惠条件已经超出了经济领域,把以往帝国主义在华租界的政治法律特权都搬
了出来,不惜牺牲国家主权吸引外资,由于资本成份越来越复杂,现在各地的
政治法律特权已经扩展到了所有资本。
《法制晚报》7月上旬的一篇报道,河南沁阳市规定了12条5000万以上
投资者享有的各种政治法律特权,其中包括可以不受交通法规的制约、医院看
病享受半价、子女随便选择学校、出入娱乐场所(赌博嫖娼)不受公安机关检
查等,还规定每月1至25日为企业“安静日”,包括司法机关在内的全市任
何部门不得进入企业,违者立刻开除,已有7名公务员因进入企业而被开除。
其实像河南沁阳这类规定在东南沿海地区早就出现了,广东一位市政法委书记
在解释为什么要让法院判决民工败诉时,竟然对着中央电视台的镜头就敢赤裸
裸地说:“很简单,我这里民工多的是,引进外资却很难,不替外资说话替谁
说话?发展才是硬道理,这是小平同志说的。”进入中国的许多外资公司大老
板,也由最初单纯的贿赂收买官员, 逐渐的发展为支配和教训中国官员,据说
北京市副市长刘志华,就是因为违背了一家外资公司的利益,立刻就被公开了
其淫乱的录像带。
五、就海外上市来看,与外资进入中国的掠夺性相反,我们进入西方发达国家
的公司却给当地投资者带去了惊人的丰厚回报。中国石油公司当初在美国上市
融资不过29亿美元,上市四年海外分红累积高达119亿美元。仅中国石
油、中国石化、中国移动、中国联通四个公司四年海外分红就超过1000亿
美元,值得强调的是,上述公司的盈利完全是来自对国内消费者的掠夺,要么
来自于中国石油资源的涨价、要么来自于国内手机双向收费等高额收费,这实
际上是把中国人的钱财收集起来送给外国人。外国公司抽取中国财富已经够可
怕了,中国国有公司也帮着外国人抽取中国财富就说不过去了。像上述四个公
司目前中国不下一百家,如此规模地海外分红,不仅中国这样的发展中国家承
受不了,即便是美国这样的发达国家也肯定会被分成第三世界的!
要知道,我们目前全国的社会保障支出也就是3000多亿人民币,2004
年全国的低保资金,中央财政和地方财政加起来,也不过才200多亿人民
币,仅相当于上述四家公司一年海外分红的十分之一(每年合人民币2000
多亿)。国有企业是全国人民的企业,应该为全国人民服务,而不应该只考虑
外国投资者的利益。
据卫生部第三次卫生服务调查,目前全国50%以上的城市人口、87%的农
村人口无任何医疗保障,中西部地区约80%的人,因为看不起病住不起医,
超过 50% 的农村中小学基本运行经费难以保证,超过40%的小学使用危
房,40%的小学缺少课桌板凳,接近40%的农村小学交不起电费,有电也
不敢开灯。
西部地区有的农村教师一个月工资只有40元,甚至个别女教师被迫在课余时
间偷偷卖淫为生。据中国人民大学和香港科技大学的联合调查,2004年中
国基尼系数为0.53左右。另据国家统计局城乡住户抽样调查,城乡平均贫
富差距已从1978年的2.7倍扩大至2003年的7.4倍,25年中扩
大了4.7倍。在经济持续多年高速增长下,贫富差距的迅速扩大和贫困的惊
人增长,根源已经不再是单纯的国内制度因素了,而是国际垄断资本对中国进
行经济殖民化的结果。
六、最后从开发区来看,全国持续多年的争建开发区热潮,已经成为毁灭资
源,外资对中国进行制度性掠夺的一种方式。据国土资源部提供的资料,自1
996年至2003年的七年间,中国耕地面积已由19.5亿亩减少到18
.5亿亩,7年减少了1亿亩,平均每年约减少1429万亩,比两个海南省
还要大,等于每年消失两个海南省这般大的耕地。中国人均耕地只有1.43
亩,不足世界平均水平的40%,2003年,在全国已经有6个省的人均耕
地低于零点八亩警戒线。2004年中央对全国近7000个开发区进行清理
时,仅开发区新上项目占用土地面积就达7400万亩,其中有百分之四十是
开而不发,造成大量土地闲置,更让人痛惜的是大批良田已经被渣土彻底毁
掉。国土资源部有关负责人说,各种名目的开发区面积已超过了祖祖辈辈建成
的中国全部城镇用地面积的总和。越来越多的城市走上了“苏州模式”的发展
道路,即依靠廉价土地吸引外资。
据一份统计报告称,以廉价土地吸引外资的苏州,GDP每增加一个百分点,
将消耗掉5000亩以上的耕地。在每年18%的高增长速度下,耕地每年以
近10万亩的速度在消失。用廉价土地吸引外资,究竟白白送给外资多少财富
我们无从计算,但是从丧失土地的农民损失中可以折射出一个惊人的天文数
字。据有关专家统计,丧失土地的农民得到的补偿款在5—10% 之间,10
年农民损失10—20万亿,把农民世世代代赖以为生的土地剥夺过来送给外
国人,无论怎么说都是一种卖国行为。
用廉价土地吸引来的外资,又通过土地增值做起了房地产生意,把中国土地增
值变成了外资的利润。国土资源部耕地保护司司长潘明才近日指出:从200
5年的情况看,全国新增建设用地出让纯收益应该为763亿元,而中央和地
方实际收缴的新增建设用地土地有偿使用费只有214.5亿元,其中550
亿流入了外资房地产公司,也建设说,仅去年一年,全国新增建设用地使用费
就流失近550亿元。
大家可以想一想,我们国民的工资收入变成了外资的利润,我们子孙后代的资
源变成了外资的利润,我们恶化的环境变成了外资的利润,我们的国土也变成
了外资的利润,那我们国家最后还有什么呢?1840年以来,帝国主义侵略
中国要的不就是这个结果吗?1840年鸦片战争失败后,中国对西方列强的
赔款总额是13亿银元,相当于当时3亿多英镑,从我们上述任何一项中拿过
来的损失,都超过3亿英镑(即便考虑到币值变化)。
另据一项不完全统计,从1931年“九一八事变”到1945年8月日本投
降的14年里,按1937年的币值计算,日本侵略给中国造成的直接经济损
失达1000多亿美元,间接经济损失达5000多亿美元,掠夺煤炭5.8
6亿吨,木材1亿立方米。我们现在20多年间煤炭出口20多亿吨,其中出
口日本煤炭按照每年2000万吨计算,也是5亿多吨,出口日本的木材相当
于中国国土20%的森林面积,更是超过了1亿立方米。
我们1840年以来的民族救亡和民族独立战争还有什么意义?有人可能会
问,中国是怎样落到目前这种“国际奶牛”地位的,或者说,西方国家是怎样
利用中国的开放机会,成功的实现了对中国经济的殖民化转变的?
其中的原因有很多,大家可以写出许多大文章大著作,在此只是指出一点,就
是买办集团和汉奸集团的作用,中国进出口贸易的相当大部分,是控制在海外
经商留学的高干子女配偶手中,十几年来不断跑出去的类似民运派的人也参与
了越来越大量的进出口贸易。据有关报告披露,截至2005年底,仅海外高
干子女亲属经营的中国进出口贸易每年就达一千多亿美元,拥有财产六千亿美
元以上,海外定居的高干亲属子女已经超过百万,其中高干配偶子女有二十万
人,再加上加入外国国籍的各种文化精英越来越多,活跃在国内政策咨询领域
的各种知识精英也在积极为外资说话,所有这些利益已经不在国内的人,都在
不同程度上影响着国家政策的选择,这是外资能够成功将中国经济殖民化的一
个重要因素。随着越来越多的政治精英(亲属)、经济精英和知识精英加入外
国国籍,中国经济特别是地方经济将会越来越深的陷入外资的掌控之中。前面
提到的国际资本将要对中国发动的金融打击,将是最终全面肢解中国的最大危
险,美国、英国和日本等西方国家的研究报告都提出了要在21世纪永久性的
解决中国问题,所谓永久性解决,就是像前苏联解体那样,把中国肢解为许多
小国。(完)
- posted on 04/03/2009
ZILI wrote:
中国经济到了最危险的时刻!
周天勇
19世纪末20世纪初的中国在政治上遭到了西方列强的瓜分,20世纪末2
1世纪初的中国在经济上再次遭到了西方列强的瓜分。所不同的只是19世纪
末20世纪初,西方列强是用各种条约瓜分了我们,现在西方列强则是用各种
规则在瓜分我们。中国被瓜分的主要标志,就是正在成为西方发达国家随意挤
压的“奶牛”,身上被国际垄断资本插满了财富吸管,用断子绝孙的资源毁灭
式开发,所透支形成的巨大财富,如同长江大河般的流向西方发达国家,提高
了西方发达国家的生活水平,带动了整个世界经济的增长,却唯独牺牲了中国
人民的福利,不仅是牺牲了这一代人的福利,更可怕的是掏空了子孙后代的资
源基础。可以说,用牺牲子孙后代资源基础的办法,来换取一代人的富足,已
经是一种犯罪了,更何况这种资源的毁灭式发展,连这一代中国人都没有享受
到,完全被这一代西方人给消耗掉了。
确实如此。这也是真正长久以来让我关注和不安的唯一问题。一个庞大种族,把自己生存和子孙后代赖以生存的环境和资源变卖了,换来了暂时的纸头上的财富,不要说这一代政府和人民没有这个权利,这本身也是不可思议的疯狂和愚蠢。
中国在接下去的15-20年里,腾挪余地和时间很有限。It will be a time of "make it or break it". 为什么中国一直存在这种社会发展的这样或那样的疯狂,看来不得不承认,是因为没有众说纷纭的媒体舆论和大众争论,所以政府很容易在不知不觉中偏执,很容易走偏。等即成事实,发现问题时,已经太晚了。
不要说现在的这种世界贸易旗号下的经济疯狂,就说过去文革的政治疯狂,当时谁能感觉到那是一种疯狂,一种不正常?文革十年以后,国家没有退路了,所谓的政党政府才开始醒悟。已经太晚了。西方民主和舆论均衡的复杂治国强国之路,中国不可能不走。对一个后进国家而言,民主确实很累很麻烦,而且也不确保成功,但这个麻烦这个累中国省不了,至少能给这个庞大民族的后代带来相对长远的理智和真正的稳定。
自立在哪里看到这些大白话贴子的的,在国内论坛上?
- posted on 04/03/2009
值得了解的观点。此公是否新老左派的一员?
古狗了一下:
周天勇,男,1958年生,经济学博士,教授,中共中央党校校委研究室副主任,北京科技大学博士生导师,1980年从青海省民和县考入东北财经大学(原辽宁财经学院)基本建设经济系,1992年获东北财经大学经济学博士学位,1994年调入中共中央党校执教和从事研究至今。 社会兼职有:中国城市发展研究会副理事长兼城市研究所所长,国家行政学院、北京科技大学、东北财政大学、中国社会科学院研究生院等教授,国家发改委价格咨询专家。
主要研究领域为社会主义经济理论、宏观经济、经济发展和增长、劳动经济、中小企业、金融风险、城市化、国企改革、农业经济等。出版专著10多部,发表论文400多篇。[ - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
What's wrong with 令胡? I thought this is always exactly why I did NOT agree with abc and 令胡 said I knew nothing and I should shut up.
令胡冲 wrote:
自立在哪里看到这些大白话贴子的的,在国内论坛上?
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
稍微仔细一看,发现作者把一切问题归咎于外国。中国不是个主权国家?
玩blame game?
别的不说,说中国对矿产品的大量进口,导致世界矿产品价格飙涨,这也是中国为世界作的贡献?怪哉! - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
What if a 主权国家 doesn't care about 主权?
And real problem is short sight, every year GDP has to be up 8%, so....
touche wrote:
稍微仔细一看,发现作者把一切问题归咎于外国。中国不是个主权国家?
玩blame game?
别的不说,说中国对矿产品的大量进口,导致世界矿产品价格飙涨,这也是中国为世界作的贡献?怪哉! - posted on 04/03/2009
这篇在网上流传很长时间了,有人说是冒名。
刚好今天NY Times 上有 Krugman 的专栏,可以参考:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
China’s Dollar Trap
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Back in the early stages of the financial crisis, wags joked that our trade with China had turned out to be fair and balanced after all: They sold us poison toys and tainted seafood; we sold them fraudulent securities.
But these days, both sides of that deal are breaking down. On one side, the world’s appetite for Chinese goods has fallen off sharply. China’s exports have plunged in recent months and are now down 26 percent from a year ago. On the other side, the Chinese are evidently getting anxious about those securities.
But China still seems to have unrealistic expectations. And that’s a problem for all of us.
The big news last week was a speech by Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of China’s central bank, calling for a new “super-sovereign reserve currency.”
The paranoid wing of the Republican Party promptly warned of a dastardly plot to make America give up the dollar. But Mr. Zhou’s speech was actually an admission of weakness. In effect, he was saying that China had driven itself into a dollar trap, and that it can neither get itself out nor change the policies that put it in that trap in the first place.
Some background: In the early years of this decade, China began running large trade surpluses and also began attracting substantial inflows of foreign capital. If China had had a floating exchange rate — like, say, Canada — this would have led to a rise in the value of its currency, which, in turn, would have slowed the growth of China’s exports.
But China chose instead to keep the value of the yuan in terms of the dollar more or less fixed. To do this, it had to buy up dollars as they came flooding in. As the years went by, those trade surpluses just kept growing — and so did China’s hoard of foreign assets.
Now the joke about fraudulent securities was actually unfair. Aside from a late, ill-considered plunge into equities (at the very top of the market), the Chinese mainly accumulated very safe assets, with U.S. Treasury bills — T-bills, for short — making up a large part of the total. But while T-bills are as safe from default as anything on the planet, they yield a very low rate of return.
Was there a deep strategy behind this vast accumulation of low-yielding assets? Probably not. China acquired its $2 trillion stash — turning the People’s Republic into the T-bills Republic — the same way Britain acquired its empire: in a fit of absence of mind.
And just the other day, it seems, China’s leaders woke up and realized that they had a problem.
The low yield doesn’t seem to bother them much, even now. But they are, apparently, worried about the fact that around 70 percent of those assets are dollar-denominated, so any future fall in the dollar would mean a big capital loss for China. Hence Mr. Zhou’s proposal to move to a new reserve currency along the lines of the S.D.R.’s, or special drawing rights, in which the International Monetary Fund keeps its accounts.
But there’s both less and more here than meets the eye. S.D.R.’s aren’t real money. They’re accounting units whose value is set by a basket of dollars, euros, Japanese yen and British pounds. And there’s nothing to keep China from diversifying its reserves away from the dollar, indeed from holding a reserve basket matching the composition of the S.D.R.’s — nothing, that is, except for the fact that China now owns so many dollars that it can’t sell them off without driving the dollar down and triggering the very capital loss its leaders fear.
So what Mr. Zhou’s proposal actually amounts to is a plea that someone rescue China from the consequences of its own investment mistakes. That’s not going to happen.
And the call for some magical solution to the problem of China’s excess of dollars suggests something else: that China’s leaders haven’t come to grips with the fact that the rules of the game have changed in a fundamental way.
Two years ago, we lived in a world in which China could save much more than it invested and dispose of the excess savings in America. That world is gone.
Yet the day after his new-reserve-currency speech, Mr. Zhou gave another speech in which he seemed to assert that China’s extremely high savings rate is immutable, a result of Confucianism, which values “anti-extravagance.” Meanwhile, “it is not the right time” for the United States to save more. In other words, let’s go on as we were.
That’s also not going to happen.
The bottom line is that China hasn’t yet faced up to the wrenching changes that will be needed to deal with this global crisis. The same could, of course, be said of the Japanese, the Europeans — and us.
And that failure to face up to new realities is the main reason that, despite some glimmers of good news — the G-20 summit accomplished more than I thought it would — this crisis probably still has years to run.
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
July wrote:
What's wrong with 令胡? I thought this is always exactly why I did NOT agree with abc and 令胡 said I knew nothing and I should shut up.
Do you really mean you know better than ABC? On what issue? :)
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
What do u mean better? Do u know anything better?
令胡冲 wrote:
July wrote:Do you really mean you know better than ABC? On what issue? :)
What's wrong with 令胡? I thought this is always exactly why I did NOT agree with abc and 令胡 said I knew nothing and I should shut up.
- posted on 04/03/2009
令胡怎么连这样的大白话贴子也看不懂了?这字里行间哪里有责怪我们政府的意思?不通篇都是谴责、仇视西方的文字?不都是帝国主义侵略、外资掠夺的结果?
给周天庸支一招:马上关闭国门,驱逐一切外资,逮捕所有为西方企业工作的中国人,停止与西方所有的经贸联系,将天庸、天昏提拔到国家重要岗位上来。
中国不乏周天庸之类红着敌视的双眼、满心仇恨、不见阳光的鼠辈。这类无知、无能、无德的东西,才是中国人民的大敌!
令胡冲 wrote:
ZILI wrote:确实如此。这也是真正长久以来让我关注和不安的唯一问题。一个庞大种族,把自己生存和子孙后代赖以生存的环境和资源变卖了,换来了暂时的纸头上的财富,不要说这一代政府和人民没有这个权利,这本身也是不可思议的疯狂和愚蠢。
中国经济到了最危险的时刻!
周天勇
19世纪末20世纪初的中国在政治上遭到了西方列强的瓜分,20世纪末2
1世纪初的中国在经济上再次遭到了西方列强的瓜分。所不同的只是19世纪
末20世纪初,西方列强是用各种条约瓜分了我们,现在西方列强则是用各种
规则在瓜分我们。中国被瓜分的主要标志,就是正在成为西方发达国家随意挤
压的“奶牛”,身上被国际垄断资本插满了财富吸管,用断子绝孙的资源毁灭
式开发,所透支形成的巨大财富,如同长江大河般的流向西方发达国家,提高
了西方发达国家的生活水平,带动了整个世界经济的增长,却唯独牺牲了中国
人民的福利,不仅是牺牲了这一代人的福利,更可怕的是掏空了子孙后代的资
源基础。可以说,用牺牲子孙后代资源基础的办法,来换取一代人的富足,已
经是一种犯罪了,更何况这种资源的毁灭式发展,连这一代中国人都没有享受
到,完全被这一代西方人给消耗掉了。
中国在接下去的15-20年里,腾挪余地和时间很有限。It will be a time of "make it or break it". 为什么中国一直存在这种社会发展的这样或那样的疯狂,看来不得不承认,是因为没有众说纷纭的媒体舆论和大众争论,所以政府很容易在不知不觉中偏执,很容易走偏。等即成事实,发现问题时,已经太晚了。
不要说现在的这种世界贸易旗号下的经济疯狂,就说过去文革的政治疯狂,当时谁能感觉到那是一种疯狂,一种不正常?文革十年以后,国家没有退路了,所谓的政党政府才开始醒悟。已经太晚了。西方民主和舆论均衡的复杂治国强国之路,中国不可能不走。对一个后进国家而言,民主确实很累很麻烦,而且也不确保成功,但这个麻烦这个累中国省不了,至少能给这个庞大民族的后代带来相对长远的理智和真正的稳定。
自立在哪里看到这些大白话贴子的的,在国内论坛上?
- posted on 04/03/2009
June wrote:
令胡怎么连这样的大白话贴子也看不懂了?这字里行间哪里有责怪我们政府的意思?不通篇都是谴责、仇视西方的文字?不都是帝国主义侵略、外资掠夺的结果?
最后一段不是吗?胡总书记是高干,他的孩子也在国外,儿子也在搞买办。
不要对激进的声音总是那么多本能的敌意。左激进,右激进;愤青激进,汉奸激进。这就象人左右两条腿走路一样。没有人能只用一条腿走路。人总要走偏,所以需要两条腿,社会也一样。美国也一样,小布卖了右腿,小奥来卖左腿。
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
好文章。那天我看见一个笑话:他们给我们有毒产品,我们给他们废纸,we are even。
我是不信阴谋论的,只是相信未来难以预测。要骂首先骂自己。
行人 wrote:
这篇在网上流传很长时间了,有人说是冒名。
刚好今天NY Times 上有 Krugman 的专栏,可以参考:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
China’s Dollar Trap
By PAUL KRUGMAN
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
我把这篇东西内销给国内同学。这是一位同学的部分反应:
当国内一些大城市中产阶级也迈入后现代性的消费主义,过着"我买故我在"的生活时,一场世界金融危机,使人们又回过头来从新审视周遍的一切,怀疑主义回归或许是个好事.
作者的价值观,犹如一个小孩小时候被邻家小孩欺负了,长大了还耿耿于怀?是武打小说看多了的复仇心理?民族悲情主义是与人与己,与国与社会有价值吗?背负着悲情色彩的民族是成不了"大国"的民族的.
- posted on 04/03/2009
确实是乱套了。不学纯粹的经济学能搞明白吗?;-)
过去有一个叫作“张无常”的美籍华人经济学家,据说现在隐居在中国。曾是大名
鼎鼎的,现在写博客。其博客里充满了荒谬的“经济理论”。就连那么一个大名鼎
鼎的专业经济学家都是那样的(一半是真糊涂,另一半是假糊涂),能不乱套吗?
有人说:你这个掉进钱眼里的东西,整天来用狗屁的纯粹经济学来唬人。我不学纯
粹经济学照样活得很滋润。
本人说:你滋润,本人很高兴。你在滋润之余还在为很多不为你劳而从你获的人工
作。
为何多数大学里不教纯粹的经济学?美得你!若多数人都知道了纯粹经济学里的道
理,还有几个人拥护现在或将来的中外政客们的那些骗人的政策?
本人在这里鼓吹学习纯粹的经济学,倒落到被狗血喷头的境地。古代的一些先知就
是那样的命运。本人不是先知也不是专家,是鹦鹉。鹦鹉被狗血喷头。喷的都是瞎
子们。
一帮瞎子们把玩这个经济学、把玩那个经济学,唯独对纯粹的经济学怕而远之。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
推荐一个关键词,如何打乱价值链中的排序问题?纯数学的排列组合不算:) - posted on 04/03/2009
有人说:你说的那些玩艺,我根本不感兴趣。我感兴趣的是整个人类的版本更新。人
类版本更新后,那一切都消失了。
本人说:马克思也曾说过类似的话吧?无产阶级一掌握了生产资料,就焕发了精神、
海水变成柠檬水、北京烤鸭直接飞进食者的嘴里、马桶全是黄金制成等。但是马克
思从来未论述他那套系统是怎么运作的。别人一问他那问题,马克思就瞪着怒目骂
那人是“资产阶级的走狗!”
“人类新版本”理论里说了新版本人类的系统是怎么运作的了吗?是一个很好的研
究课题呀!现在有“新人类”方面的经济学论著吗?还是“新人类”根本就不需要
经济和经济学了?本人很好奇,望指教呀! - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
一个人的价值判断遵循两个天道:1) 一个good对他的marginal utility 和他现有的
那good的数量(number of units)是反向的关系。2) other things being equal,
若m > n, m 单位的同样good 对一个人的marginal utility 比 n 单位的同样good大。
另外,他的价值判断排序链条是可能随着时间变化的。
老瓦 wrote:
推荐一个关键词,如何打乱价值链中的排序问题?纯数学的排列组合不算:) - posted on 04/03/2009
st e-dou #282 wrote:
一个人的价值判断遵循两个天道:1) 一个good对他的marginal utility 和他现有的
那good的数量(number of units)是反向的关系。2) other things being equal,
若m > n, m 单位的同样good 对一个人的marginal utility 比 n 单位的同样good大。
另外,他的价值判断排序链条是可能随着时间变化的。
老瓦 wrote:
推荐一个关键词,如何打乱价值链中的排序问题?纯数学的排列组合不算:)
这明显是一个宏观政治经济问题,你从微观找切入点,不算。 - posted on 04/03/2009
有人说:新人类出现后,经济学都要改写,因为是新人类了,即使还有天道,天道到
那时也变了。
本人说:假定你说的都对,现在可以一睽你们新人类的新经济学的内容吗?
有人说:还没写出呢?
本人说:什么时候写出?能告诉本人吗?本人若不知道那新经济学里有什么,自己
变成新人类的积极性就不高。本人跳之前要搞明白呀。
有人说:搞什么明白不明白的。那是基于信仰的,不是你整天鼓吹的那些理性、逻
辑之类的。信则灵。
本人说:关乎性命的事,也信则灵?你胆子也太大啦!到底有没有“新人类经济学”
方面的书? - posted on 04/03/2009
你以为本人真懂“宏观政治经济”呀?;-)
宏观经济里面的那些aggregates 都是所有微观个体的行动的结果的aggregates。永
远也脱离不了个体的行动。那就是方法论个体主义在纯粹经济学里的一个应用。那
不是为方法而方法,而是由于事实的天道决定的。
老瓦 wrote:
st e-dou #282 wrote:这明显是一个宏观政治经济问题,你从微观找切入点,不算。
一个人的价值判断遵循两个天道:1) 一个good对他的marginal utility 和他现有的
那good的数量(number of units)是反向的关系。2) other things being equal,
若m > n, m 单位的同样good 对一个人的marginal utility 比 n 单位的同样good大。
另外,他的价值判断排序链条是可能随着时间变化的。
老瓦 wrote:
推荐一个关键词,如何打乱价值链中的排序问题?纯数学的排列组合不算:) - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
当然还没有啦,若把这一团乱麻似的经济危机理清楚了,新经济学的轮廓就有了。你以为奥派已经理清楚了,但是很明显的,有很多问题嘛。都德也认为他不完全同意奥派。
st e-dou #281 wrote:
“人类新版本”理论里说了新版本人类的系统是怎么运作的了吗?是一个很好的研究课题呀!现在有“新人类”方面的经济学论著吗?还是“新人类”根本就不需要经济和经济学了?本人很好奇,望指教呀! - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
你们的“新人类经济学”也是基于信仰的吗?里面有类似 流油的北京烤鸭直接飞进坐在黄
金马桶上的食者嘴里的描述吗? - posted on 04/03/2009
本人现在一门心思就是要摧毁奥派经济学或见到别人一举摧毁奥派经济学,或者指出
里面的一些谬误。为了让本人过过那摧毁的瘾,你能指出奥派理论里面的那些“很
多问题”吗?一条一条的,加上简单的分析。谢谢。另外,若你见到“新人类经济
学”方面的书,一定要告诉本人。谢谢。
CNDer wrote:
当然还没有啦,若把这一团乱麻似的经济危机理清楚了,新经济学的轮廓就有了。你以为奥派已经理清楚了,但是很明显的,有很多问题嘛。都德也认为他不完全同意奥派。
st e-dou #281 wrote:
“人类新版本”理论里说了新版本人类的系统是怎么运作的了吗?是一个很好的研究课题呀!现在有“新人类”方面的经济学论著吗?还是“新人类”根本就不需要经济和经济学了?本人很好奇,望指教呀! - posted on 04/03/2009
真照着马克思的理论走的那些 then-新人类,当他们实现了马克思说的生产资料公有
之后,突然发现马克思并未告诉他们怎么运作那个系统,只记得马克思在书中告诉
他们历史的必然会领着他们的手走向美好明天的。他们就大炼钢铁、大跃进,以为
是历史的必然在领着他们的手。一些人就那么被领进了死亡。
什么意思?
你们新人类要走向你们新人类的乐园,大概要做一些周密的计划,例如进入乐园之
后怎么运作那个系统。当然现有的都被你们新人类唾弃了,包括现在的那些烦人的
纯粹经济学等。若你们这些新人类信徒真如马克思信徒们那样等着历史的必然(或其
他你们新发明的什么辞汇)来领着你们,你们那时可能会发现你们的教主过去并未告
诉你们一个完全的故事。而那时教主已经进了“后乐园”(就是新人类的天堂),已
经无法再直接教诲你们了。历史就又重复了。马克思在“后乐园”里正在微笑 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
你们这些新人类,若能告诉本人那些细节知识,本人消化吸收后可能会报名加入你们,
否则本人很难基于你们的信仰加入你们的行列。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
据说胡耀邦直到死之前已经读了很多遍“资本论”了,可能越读越明白?还是越读越
糊涂?;-) - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
可能你们“新人类”理论还未发展到马克思理论那样完备程度(不是说马的理论完备)? - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/03/2009
还是如马克思说的“车到山前必有路”? - posted on 04/06/2009
我先说第一点比较容易的.
奥派对于社会主义的批判主要地是对於计划经济的批判。无论是米赛斯还是哈耶克,他们反复阐述了计划经济的荒谬,这些是令人信服的。但是他们将计划经济等同于社会主义了,他们就宣布了社会主义是死路一条。后来苏联的解体似乎从实际上证实了这个结论,因此看上去(社会主义是死路一条)更加真实。
计划经济死路一条,yes, absolutely。没有市场就没有价格。
奥派根本看不到社会主义的某些元素的合理性,因为上述的原因。我这样说,难道我想回到前苏联的制度去吗?不,绝不。前苏联(以及改革前中国)是计划经济加上独裁政权,改革后中国是混合经济加上独裁政权,无论哪一个都不是我的选择。
- posted on 04/06/2009
任何一个产品,没有市场就没有价格;若没有价格,资本家(做决定者)就无法计算。
那不仅适用于社会主义经济,而且适用于资本主义经济。不同的是:社会主义经济
是由政府强制地拥有生产资料,无法计算是由那强制造成的,人们没有不那样做的
自由,只好一起受罪;而资本主义经济里也可能有一定程度的政府强制,若有,救
有类似的问题。若无,就是自由资本主义,还会有类似的问题(如一个公司完全包了
全“社会”里一个特定产品的生产),但由于不能计算,那样的公司要承受经济损失,
那种状况就不太可能自己维持很长时间。奥派做的都是纯粹经济学的分析,尽量避
开价值判断(伦理学)的内容。那就是它的威力所在之一。就象本人在这里心平气和
地写的一些帖子,不急不躁,反到令一些被本人嘲讽的瞎子们气急甚至骂街。越是
纯粹的经济学分析,其威力就越大。心平气和地就把共产党、共和党、民主党等党
派的一些政客们所共有的一些荒谬揭露殆尽了,而整个心平气和的过程却从来未谈
一个字的政治和道德伦理。那就是奥派经济学的威力所在。那就是本人的一些文字
的威力所在。那就是本人说的高层次的反共的一个表现。
新人类学者们对那些大概是不屑的。新人类学者们要塑造的是新人类。新人类将不
需要行动、也就不需要经济学。由于新人类不需要行动,社会主义里面的那些“好”
的就全实现了。社会主义里面的那些“好”的都是基于政府的强制的,否则不可能
存在。最后,这新人类学又是一个乌托邦。乌托邦是死亡之邦,因为它不是基于真
的人,而是基于过去不存在、现在不存在、将来也不存在的“新人类”的概念。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
你连新人类的经济是怎么运作的都完全不知道,就信了新人类学。那和1949年前后的
那些信仰上共产主义的热血青年们有什么区别呢?那些热学青年除了具备热血、朴
素的阶级感情和一门心思的信仰,没有独立思考自由精神。他们和你这个新人类学
者有什么区别?信仰是私人的一个领域的,是不应该左右一个人的属于理性范围的
思考的。用信仰代替理性,那就是共产主义热血青年呀。你不就是他们当中一个吗?
只不过你把共产主义信仰换成了新人类学主义信仰。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
一些人离开信仰是无法活的,丢了一个后赶紧抓住另一个,就象沉浮于海中的一个人。
一人信仰的东西越具体,那人就越离不开信仰(无论那信仰是什么)。越具体,就可
能越荒谬,也就陷得越深。象法轮功之类的就是那样。越抽象,就越不依赖,就陷
得越浅。很具体的信仰是危险的。估计高僧们就是只信非常抽象的信仰的那些僧们。
而多数僧们成了沉迷于非常具体的信仰的愚众。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
区别是:共产主义青年读了或听了马克思理论之后,决定用枪炮来推翻现存制度。
“新人类”意识到现存制度的不合理的地方,不合理的地方来自人性的弱点。“新人类”意识到人性是一个缓慢变迁的变量,人有可能减少自己的弱点。The way to 减少自己的弱点 is: awareness.
st e dou wrote:
你连新人类的经济是怎么运作的都完全不知道,就信了新人类学。那和1949年前后的那些信仰上共产主义的热血青年们有什么区别呢? - posted on 04/06/2009
不是“枪炮”就可以一笔带过的。所有主张都有 影响government policy 的效果,
无论是用枪炮的共产主义热血青年们的、还是用awareness的新人类主义者的。那些
主张都逃避不了面对或假装不面对纯粹经济学里的真理,都对government policy产
生效果。若用新人类主义的新人类假定一笔带过现在人类的纯粹经济学真理,就还
是为非真理的泛滥留下了真空。你们这些新人类主义者的问题之一就是那个。那就
是本人问你是否有新人类经济学的原因。所有主张都影响government policy,现在
和不久未来的老人类(不是乌托邦的新人类)面对的government policy。你们这些新
人类主义者是无法避免那个问题的。
CNDer wrote:
区别是:共产主义青年读了或听了马克思理论之后,决定用枪炮来推翻现存制度。
“新人类”意识到现存制度的不合理的地方,不合理的地方来自人性的弱点。“新人类”意识到人性是一个缓慢变迁的变量,人有可能减少自己的弱点。The way to 减少自己的弱点 is: awareness.
st e dou wrote:
你连新人类的经济是怎么运作的都完全不知道,就信了新人类学。那和1949年前后的那些信仰上共产主义的热血青年们有什么区别呢? - posted on 04/06/2009
"要骂首先骂自己。"
touche wrote:
好文章。那天我看见一个笑话:他们给我们有毒产品,我们给他们废纸,we are even。
我是不信阴谋论的,只是相信未来难以预测。要骂首先骂自己。
行人 wrote:
这篇在网上流传很长时间了,有人说是冒名。
刚好今天NY Times 上有 Krugman 的专栏,可以参考:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
China’s Dollar Trap
By PAUL KRUGMAN
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
hbai wrote:
"要骂首先骂自己。"
因为自虐最容易。:)
中国人是世界上最善良的人民,人们总爱这样说。因为不管受了什么,总能找到是自己的错。西方要是历史上曾有这样一种美德,自己早就自戕了。 - posted on 04/06/2009
米兰-昆都拉写的一些东西有时是很损的。他的一段文字描述一些人把外在的东西(主
义之类)往自己身上加用以定义自己,那主义是什么其实不是特重要的,重要的是那
种热情(或狂热),那种热情(或狂热)才是起定义作用的。
那种文字有时令一个读者(如本人)感到不自在,如同突然被别人揪掉了裤衩,被所
有人看见自己未擦净的屁股。本人自己就是一个屁股不干净的人,不必等别人揪掉
裤衩、自己先承认了算了。承认之后,就继续琢磨。新人类主义者们不是爱说ego之
类的名词吗?承认自己屁股不干净,大概也是扔掉ego的步骤之一吧。若没有什么是
不可以扔掉的,屁股还不干净吗?可能和“异化”的子虚乌有概念也有关系吧?
本人的签名是:一个屁股不净者。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
即使所有都被扔掉了,有一样还是不能被扔掉,那就是因引起果的那种因果链条的正
常思维和正常思维能力。若连那都扔掉了,就疯了。疯了,就不再附合“人”的定
义了,就“异化”了,变成一个alien了。从不疯到疯,不难。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
至少有两种疯:一种是看不见显着的、只看见子虚乌有的不显着的,另一种是看不见
不显着的、只看见貌似显着的。两种都是疯。疯是常态。疯也是有度数的。不疯是
非常态。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
自己把自己从疯中拉到不疯,那是自我教育的主要目的。拉不好,就更疯了。方法很
重要。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
“拥有什么”的心态是疯的前奏。愿意随时放弃自己“拥有”的东西是预防疯。信仰
过深的都是疯的。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
“过深”后面要加“过具体”。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
疯有其位置,不是无其位置。艺术者、音乐者们若不够疯,谁还看、听他们造出的东
西?但那样的疯多数是害了自己益了别人。若为了利己,还是不疯更好。但不疯是
难的。疯是分度数的,多数人的疯是 自己是愚众的疯,不是音乐大师那种益众的疯。
- Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/06/2009
一个音乐大师若还摆出不疯的学者样子,就不伦不类、很倒错了。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/07/2009
It is useless to curse. 有本事总结经验,卧薪尝胆。
中国秀才就有报怨的本事。
令胡冲 wrote:
hbai wrote:因为自虐最容易。:)
"要骂首先骂自己。"
中国人是世界上最善良的人民,人们总爱这样说。因为不管受了什么,总能找到是自己的错。西方要是历史上曾有这样一种美德,自己早就自戕了。 - posted on 04/08/2009
市场应该是独立于生产资料的所有权的。如果由于生产资料公有就没有市场了,那么中国的体制就无法解释了。现在生产资料之大部分是公有,但是市场也是存在的。以前不存在是因为政府不让产品流通。
提出这个是想说你由于将计划经济的批判被等同于对社会主义一切元素的批判,同时将政府在经济中的任何影响都作为社会主义的元素,因此产生对政府的极端排斥,这种情绪(而不是理性)主导了你所有的发言。
我这样说不是因为我信任或仰赖政府,我明白政府的财政/货币干预在经济危机中的作用,但是只看见政府的因素而看不见其它的因素也是要避免的。
st e dou wrote:
任何一个产品,没有市场就没有价格;若没有价格,资本家(做决定者)就无法计算。那不仅适用于社会主义经济,而且适用于资本主义经济。不同的是:社会主义经济是由政府强制地拥有生产资料,无法计算是由那强制造成的。 - posted on 04/08/2009
市场是一个抽象的概念。一个具体的生产资料或一个具体的消费品的市场才是有意义
的具体。政府企业垄断的生产资料,有其市场吗?若有,其价格及有那价格代表的
信号是真的市场价格和市场信号吗?谈什么事,若离开了具体、只着眼于一片模糊
的抽象,就没有什么意义了。
社会主义里面的好的,到底有什么具体的呢?你说了半天就还是一个“社会主义里
面的好的”的抽象。列个单子出来,让本人看看?
除了政府的因素外,其它的因素都是市场里的因素。市场不是一个十全十美的,即
使完全自由的市场也不是十全十美的,里面的一些企业家们还会做出错误的决定而
浪费资本,里面的一些消费者也会做出类似的错误决定。那是人类的现实,因为人
类的任何一个人都无法预知uncertain的未来,那才是人类的每个个体都在行动的原
因。而政府的因素所造成的错误,以及有那些错误造成的资本浪费,是系统化的错
误和浪费,不是纯粹自由市场里面的零星的不系统化的错误和浪费。
你可能又要搬出来你那一套“人性的弱点”的新人类主义。其实,即使在未来真有
新人类,现在也还要在现有人类的基础上做事。在新人类出现之前,已经有几千次
经济危机,甚至人类都因那灭绝了。经济危机都是政府造成的。自由的市场很不可
能出现那样系统化的经济危机。
CNDer wrote:
市场应该是独立于生产资料的所有权的。如果由于生产资料公有就没有市场了,那么中国的体制就无法解释了。现在生产资料之大部分是公有,但是市场也是存在的。以前不存在是因为政府不让产品流通。
提出这个是想说你由于将计划经济的批判被等同于对社会主义一切元素的批判,同时将政府在经济中的任何影响都作为社会主义的元素,因此产生对政府的极端排斥,这种情绪(而不是理性)主导了你所有的发言。
我这样说不是因为我信任或仰赖政府,我明白政府的财政/货币干预在经济危机中的作用,但是只看见政府的因素而看不见其它的因素也是要避免的。
st e dou wrote:
任何一个产品,没有市场就没有价格;若没有价格,资本家(做决定者)就无法计算。那不仅适用于社会主义经济,而且适用于资本主义经济。不同的是:社会主义经济是由政府强制地拥有生产资料,无法计算是由那强制造成的。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
我准备读这本书:
America beyond capitalism: reclaiming our wealth, our liberty, and our democracy
By Gar Alperovitz
and this one:
The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by William Greider - posted on 04/09/2009
Good luck.
According to Amazon From Publishers Weekly, the author thinks "We need shorter work weeks, stronger labor unions, worker-owned or directed firms".
"we need shorter work weeks"? Who decides?
"worker-owned or directed firms"? Who provides the capital? If a worker already has enough capital, he is not a worker any more. Without capital, worker-owned or directed firms are non-existent. If they do exist, the "worker-owned or directed firms" will use no capital and start directly from man labor and land. I that case, the workers must have enough previous savings to enable them to survive in the process of production before they can sell their products. There is no capitalists give them advance payment before their products are sold.
If the author propose such ideas as "worker-owned or directed firms" and you decide to read his ideas, I wish you luck.
I know what you are seeking: rationale for your "new mankind" fantasy. You are not seeking but rationalizing. Who else is not?
Good luck in your rationalizing.
CNDer wrote:
我准备读这本书:
America beyond capitalism: reclaiming our wealth, our liberty, and our democracy
By Gar Alperovitz - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
"The NY Times is reporting a new plan from the Obama administration: sell bailout bonds under the rubric of patriotism."
patriotism. How nice! - posted on 04/09/2009
Ever wonder why majority of Chinese 秀才 embraced CCP before 1950?
CNDers provide a case study.
st e dou wrote:
Good luck.
According to Amazon From Publishers Weekly, the author thinks "We need shorter work weeks, stronger labor unions, worker-owned or directed firms".
"we need shorter work weeks"? Who decides?
"worker-owned or directed firms"? Who provides the capital? If a worker already has enough capital, he is not a worker any more. Without capital, worker-owned or directed firms are non-existent. If they do exist, the "worker-owned or directed firms" will use no capital and start directly from man labor and land. I that case, the workers must have enough previous savings to enable them to survive in the process of production before they can sell their products. There is no capitalists give them advance payment before their products are sold.
If the author propose such ideas as "worker-owned or directed firms" and you decide to read his ideas, I wish you luck.
I know what you are seeking: rationale for your "new mankind" fantasy. You are not seeking but rationalizing. Who else is not?
Good luck in your rationalizing.
CNDer wrote:
我准备读这本书:
America beyond capitalism: reclaiming our wealth, our liberty, and our democracy
By Gar Alperovitz - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
说到底,其实多数人都是在rationalizing一些东西而已,真正去seek truth 的很
少。每人都有自己comfort zone, 多数都不想离开那个zone, 并到处捡来各种羽毛、
树叶之类的来铺垫那个雀巢。捡来的难免有不少垃圾。只要自己的雀巢令自己舒服,
里面有不少捡来的垃圾又有什么关系呢? - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
明智者把纯属个人的留在自己的雀巢里。不明智的到处显示自己头上沾着的羽毛树叶
之类的。 - posted on 04/09/2009
ZTed for critique:
"1.10 TaQism in ftn~ient China
The only other body of ancient thought worth mentioning is the schools of
political philosophy in ancient China. Though remarkable for its insights,
ancient Chinese thought had virtually no impact outside the isolated Chinese
Empire in later c'enturies, and so will be dealt with only briefly.
The three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and
the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC.
Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed
in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power.
The Taoists were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no
interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were
middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius
(551-479 BC), whose name was actually Ch'iu Chung-ni, was an erudite
man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty,
who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more
idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism
was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded
bureaucracy to rule in China.
By far the most interesting of the Chinese political philosophers were the
Taoists, founded by the immensely important but shadowy figure of Lao Tzu.
Little is known about Lao Tzu's life, but he was apparently a contemporary
and personal acquaintance of Confucius. Like the latter he came originally
from the state of Sung and was a descendant of lower aristocracy of the Yin
dynasty. Both men lived in a time of turmoil, wars and statism, but each
reacted very differently. For Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual
and his happiness was the key unit of society. If social institutions hampered
the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be
reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao Tzu, government,
with its 'laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox', was a
vicious oppressor of the individual, and 'more to be feared than fierce tigers'.
Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum;
'inaction' became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government
can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention
by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would
lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the
systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the
common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: 'The
24 Economic thought before Adam Smith
more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the
people are impoverished... The more that laws and regulations are given
prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be' .
The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy
taxation and war. 'The people hunger because their superiors consume an
excess in taxation' and, 'where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles
grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow' .
The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then
the world 'stabilizes itself' .
As Lao Tzu put it: 'Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the
people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves,
I take no action and the people enrich themselves ... '
Deeply pessimistic, and seeing no hope for a mass movement to correct
oppressive government, Lao Tzu counselled the now familiar Taoist path of
withdrawal, retreat, and limitation of one's desires.
Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369-e.286 BC)
built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical
conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang Tzu, a great
stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in
the history of human thought. The highly learned Chuang Tzu was a native of
the state of Meng (now probably in Honan province), and also descended
from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang Tzu's
fame spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the
Ch' u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang Tzu bearing great gifts and urging
him to become the king's chief minister of state. Chuang Tzu's scornful
rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the
evils underlying the trappings of state power and the contrasting virtues of
the private life:
A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief
minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox
awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a
few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into
the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places
with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me.
I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than
to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any
official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes.
Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire
and opposition to state rule: 'There has been such a thing as letting mankind
alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]'.
Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of 'spontaneous
The first philosopher-economists: the Greeks 25
order', independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and
developed by EA. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus,
Chuang Tzu: 'Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone'.
But while people in their 'natural freedom' can run their lives very well by
themselves, government rules and edicts distort that nature into an artificial
Procrustean bed. As Chuang Tzu wrote, 'The common people have a constant
nature; they spin and are clothed, till and are fed .. .it is what may be called
their "natural freedom"'. These people of natural freedom were born and
died themselves, suffered from no restrictions or restraints, and were neither
quarrelsome nor disorderly. If rulers were to establish rites and laws to
govern the people, 'it would indeed be no different from stretching the short
legs of the duck and trimming off ~he long legs of the heron' or 'haltering a
horse'. Such rules would not only be of no benefit, but would work great
harm. In short, Chuang Tzu concluded, the world 'does simply not need
governing; in fact it should not be governed'.
Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a
brigand writ large: 'A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a
ruler of a State'. Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-andout
robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-asrobber
was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian
thinkers in the Middle Ages, though of course these were arrived at independently.
Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most
determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth
century AD, and about whose life nothing is known. Elaborating on ChuangTzu,
Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient times that had had no rulers
and no government with the misery inflicted by the rulers of the current age.
In the earliest days, wrote Pao 'there were no rulers and no officials. [People]
dug wells and drank, tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to
work; and when it set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances,
they grandly achieved their own fulfillment'. In the stateless age,
there was no warfare and no disorder:
Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was no warfare afield .. .Ideas
of using power for advantage had not yet burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not
occur. Shields and spears were not used; city walls and moats were not
built. ..People munched their food and disported themselves; they were carefree
and contented.
Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came
the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is
the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants
engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they 'could give free rein to all
26 Economic thought before Adam Smith
desires'. Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant
that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded
on a much larger scale. As Pao put it:
Disputes among the ordinary people are merely trivial matters, for what scope of
consequences can a contest of strength between ordinary fellows generate? They
have no spreading lands to arouse avarice... they wield no authority through
which they can advance their struggle. Their power is not such that they can
assemble mass followings, and they command no awe that might quell [such
gatherings] by their opponents. How can they compare with a display of the royal
anger, which can deploy armies and move battalions, making people who hold no
enmities attack states that have done no wrong?
To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers,
Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by
the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is
not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler
who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.
Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology
by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the
state generates imitative violence among the people. In a happy and stateless
world, declared Pao, the people would naturally turn to thoughts of good
order and not be interested in plundering their neighbours. But rulers oppress
and loot the people and 'make them toil without rest and wrest away things
from them endlessly.' In that way, theft and banditry are stimulated among
the unhappy people, and arms and armour, intended to pacify the public, are
stolen by bandits to intensify their plunder. 'All these things are brought
about because there are rulers.' The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong
government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the
serious error of confusing cause and effect.
The only Chinese with notable views in the more strictly economic realm
was the distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145c.
90 BC). Ch'ien was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that
minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the
abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise. This was
similar to the Taoist view, but Ch'ien, a worldly and sophisticated man,
dismissed the idea that people could solve the economic problem by reducing
desires to a minimum. People, Ch'ien maintained, preferred the best and
most attainable goods and services, as well as ease and comfort. Men are
therefore habitual seekers after wealth.
Since Ch'ien thought very little of the idea of limiting one's desires, he
was impelled, far more than the Taoists, to investigate and analyse free
The first philosopher-economists: the Greeks 27
market activities. He therefore saw that specialization and the division of
labour on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion:
Each man has only to be left to utilize his own abilities and exert his strength to
obtain what he wishes...When each person works away at his own occupation and
delights in his own business, then like water flowing downward, goods will
naturally flow ceaselessly day and night without being summoned, and the people
will produce commodities without having been asked.
To Ch' ien, this was the natural outcome of the free market. 'Does this not
ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?' Furthermore, prices are regulated
on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves
and reach a proper level.
But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Ch'ien perceptively, 'what
need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic
assemblies?' What need indeed?
Ssu-ma Ch'ien also set forth the function of entrepreneurship on the market.
The entrepreneur accumulates wealth and functions by anticipating conditions
(i.e. forecasting) and acting accordingly. In short, he keeps 'a sharp
eye out for the opportunities of the times.'
Finally, Ch'ien was one of the world's first monetary theorists. He pointed
out that increased quantity and a debased quality of coinage by government
depreciates the value of money and makes prices rise. And he saw too that
government inherently tended to engage in this sort of inflation and debasement." - posted on 04/09/2009
我还是先读第二本书好了。
The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by William Greider
Mr. Greider points out that capitalism and social responsibility are mutually exclusive, and then he tries to reconcile them, a task that few sane authors would voluntarily undertake.
“The bottom line does not count humanity in its bookkeeping because to do so would violate its own ethical principles,” he writes, and then presents the other side of the coin. “When society resists the bottom line’s imperatives, it does so to preserve the integrity of its own moral values.”
Instead of pitting capitalism against social responsibility and vice versa, Mr. Greider escapes this diametric opposition by proposing symbiosis: social responsibility is not capitalism’s enemy, but rather its savior. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
Stretch 太厉害了。老子是智慧之人。其他古人我都不想知道细节。
st e dou wrote:
ZTed for critique:
"1.10 Taoism in anient China
The only other body of ancient thought worth mentioning is the schools of political philosophy in ancient China. Though remarkable for its insights, - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
CNDer wrote:
我还是先读第二本书好了。
The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by William Greider
Mr. Greider points out that capitalism and social responsibility are mutually exclusive, and then he tries to reconcile them, a task that few sane authors would voluntarily undertake.
资本主义的前提是把人的动物本性最大化, Mr. 几耐豆儿如果能调和成功,他也可以组建一个猴子山寨国,自称美猴王也:) - posted on 04/09/2009
那种书不讲基本的原理。若不知道基本的原理,就无法具备批判地读那种书的能力。
若不具备那能力,读完还是不明白(就象剑桥的那个韩国教授写的那样的东东)。基
本的原理要从 treatises 里面才能读到。与其到处乱撞,还不如读一本treatise了。
当然,读treatise的风险之一是摧毁原来自己的comfort zone. Can you handle the
truth? Most persons cannot. That's why they are so afraid of those brick
treatises.
CNDer wrote:
我还是先读第二本书好了。
The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
by William Greider
Mr. Greider points out that capitalism and social responsibility are mutually exclusive, and then he tries to reconcile them, a task that few sane authors would voluntarily undertake.
“The bottom line does not count humanity in its bookkeeping because to do so would violate its own ethical principles,” he writes, and then presents the other side of the coin. “When society resists the bottom line’s imperatives, it does so to preserve the integrity of its own moral values.”
Instead of pitting capitalism against social responsibility and vice versa, Mr. Greider escapes this diametric opposition by proposing symbiosis: social responsibility is not capitalism’s enemy, but rather its savior. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
"Man, Economy and State"里面的结构是这样的:
1:人的行动
2:直接交换(易货)
3:间接交换(货币经济)
4:消费和价格
5-9: 生产和资本结构
10:垄断
11:货币和货币购买力
12:政府种种干预
1-11 章全是讲自由经济的。只有第12章讲政府的干预。
精华是5-9章。用breathtaking 形容大概不过分。
整个方法是逻辑推论。逻辑推论过程中凡是用到empirical observation 的地方全
部明确地(explicitly)指出了。Simply breathtaking. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
里面专门讲到了"worker-owned or directed firms"是怎么回事。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
一个家长,若不让他的后代读那本书,就是失职的。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/09/2009
从种种经济学教授的文章和书里的主张看(例如“"worker-owned or directed firms"”
),里面有很多是混饭吃的。老方的文集出来后那些家伙多半会自杀的(如果那些家
伙还有点滴廉耻)。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/10/2009
我签了零八宪章,这是什么case?至少要冒不能回国的风险吧。
hbai wrote:
Ever wonder why majority of Chinese 秀才 embraced CCP before 1950? CNDers provide a case study. - posted on 04/10/2009
远远深于那个。不是比赛。是思想的交流。你整天寻找佐证你现有“新人类”信仰的,
和1949年前后的那些共产主义热血青年们确实没有什么区别。你若在那时代生活,
也必定是去延安的一员。那些去延安的若有批判精神(包括批判自己的信仰),还有
几个去的呢?共党不是从1949年前后就宣扬信仰并把那从纯粹私人领域提升到影响
政府政策、直到提升到治国之策的地位吗?虽然具体信仰的具体内容不同,你们的
精神是一样的。信仰是非理性。后来盛行的所谓“信仰真空”的流行说法,其实还
是未看到把私人信仰提升到影响政府政策、直到提升到治国之策的地位的荒谬。你
现在信了“新人类”信仰,就以为那是救世良策了,其实里面有很多空白。你现在
已经把那些空白当成了车道山前必有路的假定了。由于有了那个假定,你就无视现
在的那些天道了,好象新人类明天早晨就到来了。你其实就是一个共产主义热血青
年。
CNDer wrote:
我签了零八宪章,这是什么case?至少要冒不能回国的风险吧。
hbai wrote:
Ever wonder why majority of Chinese 秀才 embraced CCP before 1950? CNDers provide a case study. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/10/2009
联想到奥主席登基大典时天安门广场里的那人数惊人的人群,和这里一些人的热泪盈
眶或眼圈潮湿红润,“共产主义热血青年”那概念确实是很贴切的。人都是有emotion的、
有热血的。谁都不缺热血和emotion, 缺的是冷静和理性。奥主席毛主席那些人缺的
不是冷静和理性,他们有多得不能再多的冷静理性和计算,他们需要的是共产主义
热血青年们的emotions来为奥主席和毛主席工作。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/10/2009
爱国主义之类的狗屁玩艺都是奥主席毛主席用来进一步激发共产主义热血青年们的emotions为
奥主席毛主席工作的。昨天新闻里不是有白宫里的人们计划用patriotism 来激发人
们购买有毒证券吗? - posted on 04/10/2009
不是所有的热血都是一样的。即使是1930年代的同一群热血青年,也还有瞿秋白与毛泽东的区别。区别就是那良心的芽。有了良心的芽,他即使错了,终能醒悟。没有良心的芽(因为种种原因,芽死了),那就一错到底。如果看不出区别来,就没什么可说的了。智慧的表现之一就是分辨善恶的能力。
这个世界的看不见的推动力就是人心中那良心的芽。
st e dou wrote:
远远深于那个。不是比赛。是思想的交流。你整天寻找佐证你现有“新人类”信仰的,和1949年前后的那些共产主义热血青年们确实没有什么区别。你若在那时代生活,也必定是去延安的一员。那些去延安的若有批判精神(包括批判自己的信仰),还有几个去的呢?共党不是从1949年前后就宣扬信仰并把那从纯粹私人领域提升到影响政府政策、直到提升到治国之策的地位吗?虽然具体信仰的具体内容不同,你们的精神是一样的。信仰是非理性。后来盛行的所谓“信仰真空”的流行说法,其实还是未看到把私人信仰提升到影响政府政策、直到提升到治国之策的地位的荒谬。你现在信了“新人类”信仰,就以为那是救世良策了,其实里面有很多空白。你现在已经把那些空白当成了车道山前必有路的假定了。由于有了那个假定,你就无视现在的那些天道了,好象新人类明天早晨就到来了。你其实就是一个共产主义热血青
年。 - posted on 04/10/2009
William Greider is a great writer. I just started "The Soul of Capitalism" and I knew it has the correct diagnosis for the economic crisis. He also wrote "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country".
"I’ve been writing for some months, the system is not just broken and not just injured; it is collapsed. And as long as the government continues to play putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, I think it will fail. That’s not an ideological statement. It’s just—I think it’s the reality."---wiki, William Greider
http://williamgreider.com/about - posted on 04/15/2009
What is missing in the perfect capitalism calculation? Externality.
In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service. A positive impact is called an external benefit, while a negative impact is called an external cost. Producers and consumers in a market may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors.
In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would cause either too much or too little of the good to be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or
public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved. --wiki - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/15/2009
Happy rationalizing.
Rothbard made an excellent rebuttal on the so-called "externality" in one of his books. Of course you don't want to read that. Don't even bother asking me the book title.
CNDer wrote:
What is missing in the perfect capitalism calculation? Externality.
- posted on 04/15/2009
For your critique:
From one of Rothbard's books:
"APPENDIX B
"COLLECTIVE GOODS" AND "EXTERNAL BENEFITS"
TWO ARGUMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY
One of the most important philosophical problems of recent centuries is whether ethics is a rational discipline, or instead a purely arbitrary, unscientific set of personal values. Whichever side one may take in this debate, it would certainly be generally agreed that economics—or praxeology—cannot by itself suffice to establish an ethical, or politico-ethical, doctrine. Economics per se is therefore a Wertfrei science, which does not engage in ethical judgments. Yet, while economists will generally agree to this flat statement, it is certainly curious how much energy they have spent trying to justify—in some tortuous, presumably scientific, and Wertfrei manner—various activities and expenditures of government. The consequence is the widespread smuggling of unanalyzed, undefended ethical judgments into a supposedly Wertfrei system of economics.[140][141]
Two favorite, seemingly scientific, justifications for government activity and enterprise are (a) what we might call the argument of “external benefits” and (b) the argument of “collective goods” or “collective wants.” Stripped of seemingly scientific or quasi-mathematical trappings, the first argument reduces to the contention that A, B, and C do not seem to be able to do certain things without benefiting D, who may try to evade his “just share” of the payment. This and other “external benefit” arguments will be discussed shortly. The “collective goods” argument is, on its face, even more scientific; the economist simply asserts that some goods or services, by their very nature, must be supplied “collectively,” and “therefore” government must supply them out of tax revenue.
This seemingly simple, existential statement, however, cloaks a good many unanalyzed politico-ethical assumptions. In the first place, even if there were “collective goods,” it by no means follows either (1) that one agency must supply them or (2) that everyone in the collectivity must be forced to pay for them. In short, if X is a collective good, needed by most people in a certain community, and which can be supplied only to all, it by no means follows that every beneficiary must be forced to pay for the good, which, incidentally, he may not even want. In short, we are back squarely in the moral problem of external benefits, which we shall discuss below. The “collective goods” argument turns out, upon analysis, to reduce to the “external benefit” argument. Furthermore, even if only one agency must supply the good, it has not been proved that the government, rather than some voluntary agency, or even some private corporation, cannot supply that good.[142]
Secondly, the very concept of “collective goods” is a highly dubious one. How, first of all, can a “collective” want, think, or act? Only an individual exists, and can do these things. There is no existential referent of the “collective” that supposedly wants and then receives goods. Many attempts have been made, nevertheless, to salvage the concept of the “collective” good, to provide a seemingly ironclad, scientific justification for government operations. Molinari, for example, trying to establish defense as a collective good, asserted: “A police force serves every inhabitant of the district in which it acts, but the mere establishment of a bakery does not appease their hunger.” But, on the contrary, there is no absolute necessity for a police force to defend every inhabitant of an area or, still more, to give each one the same degree of protection. Furthermore, an absolute pacifist, a believer in total nonviolence, living in the area, would not consider himself protected by, or receiving defense service from, the police. On the contrary, he would consider any police in his area a detriment to him. Hence, defense cannot be considered a “collective good” or “collective want.” Similarly for such projects as dams, which cannot be simply assumed to benefit everyone in the area.[143]
Antonio De Viti De Marco defined “collective wants” as consisting of two categories: wants arising when an individual is not in isolation and wants connected with a conflict of interest. The first category, however, is so broad as to encompass most market products. There would be no point, for example, in putting on plays unless a certain number went to see them or in publishing newspapers without a certain wide market. Must all these industries therefore be nationalized and monopolized by the government? The second category is presumably meant to apply to defense. This, however, is incorrect. Defense, itself, does not reflect a conflict of interest, but a threat of invasion, against which defense is needed. Furthermore, it is hardly sensible to call “collective” that want which is precisely the least likely to be unanimous, since robbers will hardly desire it![144]Other economists write as if defense is necessarily collective because it is an immaterial service, whereas bread, autos, etc., are materially divisible and salable to individuals. But “immaterial” services to individuals abound in the market. Must concert-giving be monopolized by the State because its services are immaterial?
In recent years, Professor Samuelson has offered his own definition of “collective consumption goods,” in a so-called “pure” theory of government expenditures. Collective consumption goods, according to Samuelson, are those “which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtraction from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” For some reason, these are supposed to be the proper goods (or at least these) for government, rather than the free market, to provide.[145] Samuelson’s category has been attacked with due severity. Professor Enke, for example, pointed out that most governmental services simply do not fit Samuelson’s classification—including highways, libraries, judicial services, police, fire, hospitals, and military protection. In fact, we may go further and state that no goods would ever fit into Samuelson’s category of “collective consumption goods.” Margolis, for example, while critical of Samuelson, concedes the inclusion of national defense and lighthouses in this category. But “national defense” is surely not an absolute good with only one unit of supply. It consists of specific resources committed in certain definite and concrete ways—and these resources are necessarily scarce. A ring of defense bases around New York, for example, cuts down the amount possibly available around San Francisco. Furthermore, a lighthouse shines over a certain fixed area only. Not only does a ship within the area prevent others from entering the area at the same time, but also the construction of a lighthouse in one place limits its construction elsewhere. In fact, if a good is really technologically “collective” in Samuelson’s sense, it is not a good at all, but a natural condition of human welfare, like air—superabundant to all, and therefore unowned by anyone. Indeed, it is not the lighthouse, but the ocean itself—when the lanes are not crowded—which is the “collective consumption good,” and which therefore remains unowned. Obviously, neither government nor anyone else is normally needed to produce or allocate the ocean.[146]
Tiebout, conceding that there is no “pure” way to establish an optimum level for government expenditures, tries to salvage such a theory specifically for local government. Realizing that the taxing, and even voting, process precludes voluntary demonstration of consumer choice in the governmental field, he argues that decentralization and freedom of internal migration renders local government expenditures more or less optimal—as we can say that free market expenditures by firms are “optimal”—since the residents can move in and out as they please. Certainly, it is true that the consumer will be better off if he can move readily out of a high-tax, and into a low tax, community. But this helps the consumer only to a degree; it does not solve the problem of government expenditures, which remains otherwise the same. There are, indeed, other factors than government entering into a man’s choice of residence, and enough people may be attached to a certain geographical area, for one reason or another, to permit a great deal of government depredation before they move. Furthermore, a major problem is that the world’s total land area is fixed, and that governments have universally pre-empted all the land and thus universally burden consumers.[147]
We come now to the problem of external benefits—the major justification for government activities expounded by economists.[148] Where individuals simply benefit themselves by their actions, many writers concede that the free market may be safely left unhampered. But men’s actions may often, even inadvertently, benefit others. While one might think this a cause for rejoicing, critics charge that from this fact flow evils in abundance. A free exchange, where A and B mutually benefit, may be all very well, say these economists; but what if A does something voluntarily which benefits B as well as himself, but for which B pays nothing in exchange?
There are two general lines of attack on the free market, using external benefits as the point of criticism. Taken together, these arguments against the market and for governmental intervention or enterprise cancel each other out, but each must, in all fairness, be examined separately. The first type of criticism is to attack A for not doing enough for B. The benefactor is, in effect, denounced for taking his own selfish interests exclusively into account, and thereby neglecting the potential indirect recipient waiting silently in the wings.[149] The second line of attack is to denounce B for accepting a benefit without paying A in return. The recipient is denounced as an ingrate and a virtual thief for accepting the free gift. The free market, then, is accused of injustice and distortion by both groups of attackers: the first believes that the selfishness of man is such that A will not act enough in ways to benefit B; the second that B will receive too much “unearned increment” without paying for it. Either way, the call is for remedial State action; on the one hand, to use violence in order to force or induce A to act more in ways which will aid B; on the other, to force B to pay A for his gift.
Generally, these ethical views are clothed in the “scientific” opinion that, in these cases, free-market action is no longer optimal, but should be brought back into optimality by corrective State action. Such a view completely misconceives the way in which economic science asserts that free-market action is ever optimal. It is optimal, not from the standpoint of the personal ethical views of an economist, but from the standpoint of the free, voluntary actions of all participants and in satisfying the freely expressed needs of the consumers. Government interference, therefore, will necessarily and always move away from such an optimum.
It is amusing that while each line of attack is quite widespread, each can be rather successfully rebutted by using the essence of the other attack! Take, for example, the first—the attack on the benefactor. To denounce the benefactor and implicitly call for State punishment for insufficient good deeds is to advance a moral claim by the recipient upon the benefactor. We do not intend to argue ultimate values in this book. But it should be clearly understood that to adopt this position is to say that B is entitled peremptorily to call on A to do something to benefit him, and for which B does not pay anything in return. We do not have to go all the way with the second line of attack (on the “free rider”), but we can say perhaps that it is presumptuous of the free rider to assert his right to a post of majesty and command. For what the first line of attack asserts is the moral right of B to exact gifts from A, by force if necessary.
Compulsory thrift, or attacks on potential savers for not saving and investing enough, are examples of this line of attack. Another is an attack on the user of a natural resource that is being depleted. Anyone who uses such a resource at all, whatever the extent, “deprives” some future descendant of the use. “Conservationists,” therefore, call for lower present use of such resources in favor of greater future use. Not only is this compulsory benefaction an example of the first line of attack, but, if this argument is adopted, logically no resource subject to depletion could ever be used at all. For when the future generation comes of age, it too faces a future generation. This entire line of argument is therefore a peculiarly absurd one.
The second line of attack is of the opposite form—a denunciation of the recipient of the “gift.” The recipient is denounced as a “free rider,” as a man who wickedly enjoys the “unearned increment” of the productive actions of others. This, too, is a curious line of attack. It is an argument which has cogency only when directed against the first line of attack, i.e., against the free rider who wants compulsory free rides. But here we have a situation where A’s actions, taken purely because they benefit himself, also have the happy effect of benefiting someone else. Are we to be indignant because happiness is being diffused throughout society? Are we to be critical because more than one person benefits from someone’s actions? After all, the free rider did not ask for his ride. He received it, unasked, as a boon because A benefits from his own action. To adopt the second line of attack is to call in the gendarmes to apply punishment because too many people in the society are happy. In short, am I to be taxed for enjoying the view of my neighbor’s well-kept garden?[150]
One striking instance of this second line of attack is the nub of the Henry Georgist position: an attack on the “unearned increment” derived from a rise in the capital values of ground land. We have seen above that as the economy progresses, real land rents will rise with real wage rates, and the result will be increases in the real capital values of land. Growing capital structure, division of labor, and population tend to make site land relatively more scarce and hence cause the increase. The argument of the Georgists is that the landowner is not morally responsible for this rise, which comes about from events external to his landholding; yet he reaps the benefit. The landowner is therefore a free rider, and his “unearned increment” rightfully belongs to “society.” Setting aside the problem of the reality of society and whether “it” can own anything, we have here a moral attack on a free-rider situation.
The difficulty with this argument is that it proves far too much. For which one of us would earn anything like our present real income were it not for external benefits that we derive from the actions of others? Specifically, the great modern accumulation of capital goods is an inheritance from all the net savings of our ancestors. Without them, we would, regardless of the quality of our own moral character, be living in a primitive jungle. The inheritance of money capital from our ancestors is, of course, simply inheritance of shares in this capital structure. We are all, therefore, free riders on the past. We are also free riders on the present, because we benefit from the continuing investment of our fellow men and from their specialized skills on the market. Certainly the vast bulk of our wages, if they could be so imputed, would be due to this heritage on which we are free riders. The landowner has no more of an unearned increment than any one of us. Are all of us to suffer confiscation, therefore, and to be taxed for our happiness? And who then is to receive the loot? Our dead ancestors, who were our benefactors in investing the capital?[151]
An important case of external benefits is “external economies,” which could be reaped by investment in certain industries, but which would not accrue as profit to the entrepreneurs. There is no need to dwell on the lengthy discussion in the literature on the actual range of such external economies, although they are apparently negligible. The suggestion has been persistently advanced that the government subsidize these investments so that “society” can reap the external economies. Such is the Pigou argument for subsidizing external economies, as well as the old and still dominant “infant industries” argument for a protective tariff.
The call for state subsidization of external economy investments amounts to a third line of attack on the free market, i.e., that B, the potential beneficiaries, be forced to subsidize the benefactors A, so that the latter will produce the former’s benefits. This third line is the favorite argument of economists for such proposals as government-aided dams or reclamations (recipients taxed to pay for their benefits) or compulsory schooling (the taxpayers will eventually benefit from others’ education), etc. The recipients are again bearing the onus of the policy; but here they are not criticized for free riding. They are now being “saved” from a situation in which they would not have obtained certain benefits. Since they would not have paid for them, it is difficult to understand exactly what they are being saved from. The third line of attack therefore agrees with the first that the free market does not, because of human selfishness, produce enough external-economy actions; but it joins the second line of attack in placing the cost of remedying the situation on the strangely unwilling recipients. If this subsidy takes place, it is obvious that the recipients are no longer free riders: indeed, they are simply being coerced into buying benefits for which, acting by free choice, they would not have paid.
The absurdity of the third approach may be revealed by pondering the question: Who benefits from the suggested policy? The benefactor A receives a subsidy, it is true. But it is often doubtful if he benefits, since he would otherwise have acted and invested profitably in some other direction. The State has simply compensated him for losses which he would have received and has adjusted the proceeds so that he receives the equivalent of an opportunity forgone. Therefore A, if a business firm, does not benefit. As for the recipients, they are being forced by the State to pay for benefits that they otherwise would not have purchased. How can we say that they “benefit”?
A standard reply is that the recipients “could not” have obtained the benefit even if they had wanted to buy it voluntarily. The first problem here is by what mysterious process the critics know that the recipients would have liked to purchase the “benefit.” Our only way of knowing the content of preference scales is to see them revealed in concrete choices. Since the choice concretely was not to buy the benefit, there is no justification for outsiders to assert that B’s preference scale was “really” different from what was revealed in his actions.
Secondly, there is no reason why the prospective recipients could not have bought the benefit. In all cases a benefit produced can be sold on the market and earn its value product to consumers. The fact that producing the benefit would not be profitable to the investor signifies that the consumers do not value it as much as they value the uses of nonspecific factors in alternative lines of production. For costs to be higher than prospective selling price means that the nonspecific factors earn more in other channels of production. Furthermore, in possible cases where some consumers are not satisfied with the extent of the market production of some benefit, they are at perfect liberty to subsidize the investors themselves. Such a voluntary subsidy would be equivalent to paying a higher market price for the benefit and would reveal their willingness to pay that price. The fact that, in any case, such a subsidy has not emerged eliminates any justification for a coerced subsidy by the government. Rather than providing a benefit to the taxed “beneficiaries,” in fact, the coerced subsidy inflicts a loss upon them, for they could have spent their funds themselves on goods and services of greater utility.[152]" - posted on 04/15/2009
(Continued - the notes:)
(Please provide your reasoned critique on this writing by Rothbard so that I can learn from you. Thanks!)
"[140]One venerable example, used constantly in texts on public finance (an area particularly prone to camouflaged ethical judgments) is the “canons of justice” for taxation propounded by Adam Smith. For a critique of these supposedly “self-evident” canons, see Rothbard, “Mantle of Science.”
[141]The analysis of the economic nature and consequences of government ownership in this book is Wertfrei and does not involve ethical judgments. It is a mistake, for example, to believe that anyone, knowing the economic laws demonstrating the great inefficiencies of government ownership, would necessarily have to choose private over government ownership although, of course, he may well do so. Those who place a high moral value, for example, on social conflict or on poverty or on inefficiency, or those who greatly desire to wield bureaucratic power over others (or to see people subjected to bureaucratic power) may well opt even more enthusiastically for government ownership. Ultimate ethical principles and choices are outside the scope of this book. This, of course, does not mean that the present author deprecates their importance. On the contrary, he believes that ethics is a rational discipline.
[142]Thus, cf. Molinari, Society of Tomorrow, pp. 47–95.
[143]Ibid., p. 63. On the fallacy of collective goods, see S.R., “Spencer As His Own Critic,” Liberty, June, 1904, and Merlin H. Hunter and Harry K. Allen, Principles of Public Finance (New York: Harpers, 1940), p. 22. Molinari had not always believed in the existence of “collective goods,” as can be seen from his remarkable “De la production de la sécurité,” Journal des Economistes, February 15, 1849, and Molinari, “Onzième soirée” in Les soirées de la Rue Saint Lazare (Paris, 1849).
[144]Antonio De Viti De Marco, First Principles of Public Finance (London: Jonathan Cape, 1936), pp. 37–41. Similar to De Viti’s first category is Baumol’s attempted criterion of “jointly” financed goods, for a critique of which see Rothbard, “Toward A Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” pp. 255–60.
[145]Paul A. Samuelson, “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditures,” Review of Economics and Statistics, November, 1954, pp. 387–89.
[146]Stephen Enke, “More on the Misuse of Mathematics in Economics: A Rejoinder,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1955, pp. 131–33; Julius Margolis, “A Comment On the Pure Theory of Public Expenditures,” Review of Economics and Statistics, November, 1955, pp. 347–49. In his reply to critics, Samuelson, after hastening to deny any possible implication that he wished to confine the sphere of government to collective goods alone, asserts that his category is really a “polar” concept. Goods in the real world are supposed to be only blends of the “polar extremes” of public and private goods. But these concepts, even in Samuelson’s own terms, are decidedly not polar, but exhaustive. Either A’s consumption of a good diminishes B’s possible consumption, or it does not: these two alternatives are mutually exclusive and exhaust the possibilities. In effect, Samuelson has abandoned his category either as a theoretical or as a practical device. Paul A. Samuelson, “Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure,” Review of Economics and Statistics, November, 1955, pp. 350–56.
[147]Charles M. Tiebout, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy, October, 1956, pp. 416–24. At one point, Tiebout seems to admit that his theory would be valid only if each person could somehow be “his own municipal government.” Ibid., p. 421.
In the course of an acute critique of the idea of competition in government, the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph wrote as follows:
Were the taxpayer free to act as a customer, buying only those services he deemed useful to himself and which were priced within his reach, then this competition between governments would be a wonderful thing. But because the taxpayer is not a customer, but only the governed, he is not free to choose. He is only compelled to pay. . . . With government there is no producer-customer relationship. There is only the relation that always exists between those who rule and those who are ruled. The ruled are never free to refuse the services of the products of the ruler. . . . Instead of trying to see which government could best serve the governed, each government began to vie with every other government on the basis of its tax collections. . . . The victim of this competition is always the taxpayer. . . . The taxpayer is now set upon by the federal, state, school board, county and city governments. Each of these is competing for the last dollar he has. (Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, July 16, 1958)
[148]The problem of “external costs,” usually treated as symmetrical with external benefits, is not really related: it is a consequence of failure to enforce fully the rights of property. If A’s actions injure B’s property, and the government refuses to stop the act and enforce damages, property rights and hence the free market are not being fully defended and maintained. Hence, external costs (e.g., smoke damage) are failures to maintain a fully free market, rather than defects of that market. See Mises, Human Action, pp. 650–53; and de Jouvenel, “Political Economy of Gratuity,” pp. 522–26.
[149]For some unexplained reason, the benefits worried over are only the indirect ones, where B benefits inadvertently from A’s action. Direct gifts, or charity, where A simply donates money to B, are not attacked under the category of external benefit.
[150]“If my neighbors hire private watchmen they benefit me indirectly and incidentally. If my neighbors build fine houses or cultivate gardens, they indirectly minister to my leisure. Are they entitled to tax me for these benefits because I cannot ‘surrender’ them?” (S.R., “Spencer As His Own Critic”).
[151]There is justice as well as bluntnesss in Benjamin Tucker’s criticism:
“What gives value to land?” asks Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost [a Georgist]. And he answers: “The presence of population —the community. Then rent, or the value of land, morally belongs to the community.” What gives value to Mr. Pentecost’s preaching? The presence of population—the community. Then Mr. Pentecost’s salary, or the value of his preaching, morally belongs to the community. (Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 357)
[152]As Mises states:
. . . the means which a government needs in order to run a plant at a loss or to subsidize an unprofitable project must be withdrawn either from the taxpayers’ spending and investing power or from the loan market. . . . What the government spends more, the public spends less. Public works . . . are paid for by funds taken away from the citizens. If the government had not interfered, the citizens would have employed them for the realization of profit-promising projects the realization of which is neglected merely on account of the government’s intervention. Yet this nonrealized project would have been profitable, i.e., it would have employed the scarce means of production in accordance with the most urgent needs of the consumers. From the point of view of the consumers the employment of these means of production for the realization of an unprofitable project is wasteful. It deprives them of satisfactions which they prefer to those which the government-sponsored project can furnish them. (Mises, Human Action, p. 655)
Ellis and Fellner, in their discussion of external economies, ignore the primordial fact that the subsidization of these economies must be at the expense of funds usable for greater satisfactions elsewhere. Ellis and Fellner do not realize that their refutation of the Pigou thesis that increasing-cost industries are over-expanded destroys any possible basis for a subsidy to the decreasing-cost industries. Howard S. Ellis and William Fellner, “External Economies and Diseconomies,” in Readings in Price Theory (Chicago: Blakiston Co., 1952), pp. 242–63." - posted on 04/17/2009
我先不作抽象分析,以后再说。
Rothbard所反驳的观点,不全是我的观点。我认为externality是存在的,而他三分析两分析几乎就不存在了。但不是所有的externality都是需要resolve的,他认为提出externality的人必定是要求政府解决的。
Collective goods 方面,例如国家公园,公共绿地(州,县。。)。怎么能说不存在呢?如果没有税收所维持的国家公园和公共绿地,穷人上哪里去轻松一下呢?他那么抽象地一评:“你怎么知道一个人需要政府强迫提供的某种好处呢?,一个人既是不需要,好处也就不成为好处了。“ 问题是,就是存在这种每一个人都需要的好处的,新鲜空气,干净的水,一小片绿地可以踢球或散步。
External cost 方面,水污染,空气污染,冰川融化。怎么能视而不见呢?将水污染,空气污染转移到中国也还是看得见。认为私有产权可以解决external cost 的观点,我不信服。
我没说怎么解决,并不是政府一出面就解决了。关键是先承认它的存在,然后再来讨论方法。
st e dou wrote:
For your critique:
From one of Rothbard's books:
"APPENDIX B
"COLLECTIVE GOODS" AND "EXTERNAL BENEFITS"
TWO ARGUMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY
- posted on 04/17/2009
一个经济学家谈经济时尽量避免涉及他自己的价值判断,因为经济学是一门科学,不
是伦理学。
穷人享受绿地的问题,是一个伦理问题。那涉及到“人权”的概念。一种“人权”
的观念是:一个人有这权有那权,无论那人自己能否用自己所拥有的来和别人做自
愿的交换。
那就推出了很荒谬的结论:我整天什么都不做,说我有活着的人权。
当然没有几个人听我那一套,没有几个人愿意施舍给我食物让我满足自己活着的人
权。但确实有人强烈地要求政府满足我活着的人权,给我救济。而有的政府确实就
那样救济不干活的人。
那是一个伦理问题。本人不谈论那种问题,因为那是价值判断的烂泥潭。
穷人享受绿地的问题,就是同样的问题。本人免谈。本人不是伦理学家。
经济学论述的都是基于自愿交换的过程里的。非自愿的交换,那里面涉及了强制力,
强制力的问题是伦理问题。经济学可以研究强制力造成的经济后果,但无法做出伦
理的判断。伦理的判断是超出经济学的范畴的。
Rothbard在那个附录里的注里说了,external cost的问题是一个侵犯的问题,已经
不是经济学范畴的东西了。侵犯的问题涉及产权之类的政治和伦理问题。经济学无
法对那做出判断。经济学不能解决所有问题。经济学只指出行动者基于价值判断(不
关心其具体内容)而行动的逻辑结构。那逻辑结构就是天道,除非人们不再行动了。
人们永远不会不再行动了,所以经济学的天道永远存在,即使你的新人类出现了之
后还是被同样的经济学天道制约。 - posted on 04/17/2009
至于external cost, 本人做一个简单的通俗比方:
若本人到一家作客,里面有不少对主人重要的客人。本人那天正好肠胃不适,每分
钟放一个很臭的屁,而且根本无法憋住,而且声音很大。弄得那主人很尴尬,不得
不一再向他请来的奥主席道歉。而本人由于肠胃太不适,而又实在不想失去近距离
欣赏奥主席影帝丰采的机会,就宁肯连连放屁也不主动离开。那主人忍无可忍地对
本人说:“你给我造成的external cost太大了,连奥主席都要借故离开了。你给我
马上滚蛋!”
本人是尊重私有产权的人,马上有体面地退出了那个私人住所。
本人那放屁是对那主人的私有产权的严重侵犯。好合好散。那主人完全可以到法庭
去控告本人对他和他的私有产权的侵犯。但估计他不会连那样的屁事都不放过。
那就是有明确的私有产权的好处。
无明确的私有产权的怎么办?一是教育(例如尽量不要在别人家里放屁),二是把可
以变成私有财产的合乎正义原则地(这里当然有伦理问题)变成私有财产。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/17/2009
前面“例如尽量不要在别人家里放屁”要改成“例如尽量不要在公共沙滩上放屁”。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/18/2009
不就是在账面上少了些本来就不存在的钱吗?全世界都是这样,中国也没有更倒霉。谁透支了,谁赔,我就不信这场经济危机有那么厉害,肯定不会有29-33年那么惨。 - posted on 04/18/2009
在现在这个历史的转折点,伦理学即将进入经济学的范畴。这将是很新的领域。这不是刻意求新,而是现实的召唤。
见到 Greider 推荐这个经济学家:David Ellerman
他的书:Property & Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy
他的书可能是一个开始。
st e dou wrote:
穷人享受绿地的问题,是一个伦理问题。那涉及到“人权”的概念。一种“人权”的观念是:一个人有这权有那权,无论那人自己能否用自己所拥有的来和别人做自愿的交换。
那就推出了很荒谬的结论:我整天什么都不做,说我有活着的人权。
当然没有几个人听我那一套,没有几个人愿意施舍给我食物让我满足自己活着的人权。但确实有人强烈地要求政府满足我活着的人权,给我救济。而有的政府确实就那样救济不干活的人。 - posted on 04/18/2009
“现在这个历史的转折点”?嗯。
听起来很智慧嘛!现在(时刻t)就知道现在是转折点了,说明已经知道下一个时刻(t+1)
(先不说那时间的单位) 确定地要发生什么事情了(除了日月周期之类的)。那很有点
马克思历史观的味道嘛。你在那里沉思了很长时间,还是未逃离以为自己能预知未
来的那种“后马克思主义”历史观嘛。
不说那个,说说你说的那本书“Property and Contract”, 本人读了一下里面的引
言(Introduction), 里面说作者要复活来自John Locke 的“labor theory of property”
, 那“labor theory of property”大概是作者那书的理论基础之一。
John Locke 的“labor theory of property”大概是指Locke的所谓“homesteading”
(find and improve on) 的private property理论(natural rights)。作者故意隐
瞒了 John Locke那理论说的是private property的初始来源。在那初始来源之后,
private property 事通过交换和赠与来互相交换的(除了偷窃和抢夺的情况)。在当
代的生产过程中,还有那样的“homesteading”,但多数生产已经不适那样的“homesteading”
了,而是基于资本(capital goods and money capital)+land(所谓的自然资源)+labor的
了。在那里,已经没有“homesteading”了,John Locke 的“labor theory of property”
也就未必适用了。
另外,同样重要的是,那作者完全不知道和不懂资本理论(capital structure and
production structure). 工人们在开始在资本家开得工厂里工作时一般都自己没有
足够的资本(capital goods and money capital)供他们称为self-employed. 那部
份的解释了他们为何未成为self-employed而自愿地到一个资本家开得工厂去工作。
资本结构理论解释了那资本结构和生产过程里的收入和费用等的关系,里面根本就
没有所谓的“labor theory of property”的位置,因为资本家已经预付(注意:预
付)给工人工资了,那生产环节的最终产品是属于资本家的private property, 那是
没有任何疑问的。
你到处捡破烂的羽毛和树叶来铺垫你那cozy的自我陶醉自我合理化(rationalization)的
小巢。祝你happy rationalizing. 也祝你的新人类早日诞生。哈里路亚!
(本人会读完那本书“Property and Contract”,看能否学到什么过去不知道的东西。)
CNDer wrote:
在现在这个历史的转折点,伦理学即将进入经济学的范畴。这将是很新的领域。这不是刻意求新,而是现实的召唤。
见到 Greider 推荐这个经济学家:David Ellerman
他的书:Property & Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy
他的书可能是一个开始。
st e dou wrote:
穷人享受绿地的问题,是一个伦理问题。那涉及到“人权”的概念。一种“人权”的观念是:一个人有这权有那权,无论那人自己能否用自己所拥有的来和别人做自愿的交换。
那就推出了很荒谬的结论:我整天什么都不做,说我有活着的人权。
当然没有几个人听我那一套,没有几个人愿意施舍给我食物让我满足自己活着的人权。但确实有人强烈地要求政府满足我活着的人权,给我救济。而有的政府确实就那样救济不干活的人。 - posted on 04/19/2009
正在读“The Soul of Capitalism”第四章“Imperious Capital”。摘一小段:
Joseph A. Schumpeter made similar complaints, lamenting finance capital's ability to obliterate personal loyalties to time and place: "The capitalist process, by substituting a mere parcel of shares for the walls of and the machines in a factory, takes the life out of the idea of property.... Dematerialized, defunctionalized, and absentee ownership does not call forth moral allegiance as the vital form of property did." What he meant was that owning one's own home or farm or small business elicits deep commitments of personal responsibility--an owner's concern for the property's condition and its neighboring context. This felt responsibility dissipates--"melts into air"--when the property consists only of pieces of financial paper representing an "ownership" share in a distant corporation.
Schumpeter's insight identified a dehumanizing quality within the capitalist process that is a primary source of the irresponsibility in the modern system. - posted on 04/19/2009
st e dou wrote:
“现在这个历史的转折点”?嗯。
听起来很智慧嘛!现在(时刻t)就知道现在是转折点了,说明已经知道下一个时刻(t+1) (先不说那时间的单位) 确定地要发生什么事情了(除了日月周期之类的)。那很有点马克思历史观的味道嘛。你在那里沉思了很长时间,还是未逃离以为自己能预知未来的那种“后马克思主义”历史观嘛。
能说明吗?
如果现在时刻 t 和过去 t-1, t-2, ... 不同,不必预知未来就可以判断有了转折,不是吗?跟“马克思历史观”有何相关?
“预制未来”就是马克思主义?你先去问问古今中外的算命先生们学过马克思主义没。
路过这里,抬一杠。:-) - posted on 04/20/2009
That is about ordinary saver-investor's saving-investing. If a saver-investor has enough money capital and/or capital goods, he can start his own business and become his own boss. The problem is that few persons have that much capital. That is why not many persons can become capitalists and only few persons become capitalists. The modern investment channels (stocks and bonds) enable ordinary savers-investors to use their saved money capital (no matter what small amount it is) to buy claims to a company's capital goods or IOUs issued by a company. Those investment channels help the savers-investors to exchange present goods (their money capital) for another present good (claim to a company's capital goods). They a;so help the whole "society"'s capital structure and production structure to grow.
What is "unhumanizing" about that? The alternatives are for the otherwise savers-investors not to save or invest but all to start their own company or all consume up what they have.
I already talked about the first alternative above. The second alternative leads to nothing but the total impoverishing of the whole "society" because the whole capital structure and production structure will be depleted over time.
As a person who is totally ignorant of the pure economics theory, you won't reach anywhere except confirming your pride and prejudices. Happy confirming and rationalizing.
I have been very unkind to you here. But I have no other choices. You are ignorant and blind.
CNDer wrote:
正在读“The Soul of Capitalism”第四章“Imperious Capital”。摘一小段:
Joseph A. Schumpeter made similar complaints, lamenting finance capital's ability to obliterate personal loyalties to time and place: "The capitalist process, by substituting a mere parcel of shares for the walls of and the machines in a factory, takes the life out of the idea of property.... Dematerialized, defunctionalized, and absentee ownership does not call forth moral allegiance as the vital form of property did." What he meant was that owning one's own home or farm or small business elicits deep commitments of personal responsibility--an owner's concern for the property's condition and its neighboring context. This felt responsibility dissipates--"melts into air"--when the property consists only of pieces of financial paper representing an "ownership" share in a distant corporation.
Schumpeter's insight identified a dehumanizing quality within the capitalist process that is a primary source of the irresponsibility in the modern system. - posted on 04/20/2009
There are two issues that those who are blind cannot see: 1) the fact of scarcity; and 2) the fact that the capital structure is not a perpetual machine without maintenance.
Those so-called psychospiritualists cannot see either of those two issues. They think that the problem is that most persons consume too many material things and too little non-material things. Putting the problem of value judgment aside, let's talk about the dichotomy between material things and non-material things. Except the air, almost everything is scarce, including most non-material things. In order to consume more non-material things, a person must be alive. To be alive, he has to eat, drink, cloth, and being sheltered no mater how little those material things he consume. In addition to that, those who produce non-material things have to be alive and thus eat, drink, etc. Actually, the more persons consume more non-material things, the larger the number of those who produce non-material things who all need to be alive and thus all need to eat. Consequently, the amount of material things may not decrease. On the contrary, it may increase. Under the constraint of scarcity, the whole "society" may need to produce more material things, not fewer.
Now we come to the second issue: the capital structure is not a perpetual machine without any maintenance.
In order to have more material things produced, the capital structure should be increased, not reduced. The only way to do that is for every one to save and invest more, not less. That is where the whining about "dehumanizing" about the modern stock share buying sounds so ridiculous.
Base on that kind of ridiculous, the whole makind is dehumanized because almost not one has direct control of what he invests in except the freedom to buy and to sell. Mankind live on the earth where the scarcity is the never-stopping reality. If that is dehumanizing, all humans are not humans. Maybe that is where those "alienation" bullshits come from.
The earth is not a paradise. It will never be. Humans are what they are. They will never become angels. They will forever be restricted by scarcity and the natural order of things caused by that fact and each individual's uncertain future.
Those who whine with an anti-capitalism mentality are all blind and most of them do not wan to see. They are totally ignorant of the fundamental fact of human beings. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/20/2009
Most persons equate capitalism to free capitalism, free capitalism to neo-classical economics. Those two equations are wrong. The current capitalism is not free capitalism. Free capitalism is not the teaching of neo-classical economics.
Those anti-free-capitalism propagandists are playing semantics games. they cannot face the cold reality. They do not dare attack the theory about the free capitalism. They are only capable of attacking the straw-man "free capitalism". They deceit. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/20/2009
Because the earth is not a paradise and human beings not angels, and they will never be, the affairs on the earth and among persons are not perfect and will never be. There is a natural order of things that will never change unless the earth will become infinitely abundant with all that persons want and can directly consume without any production.
Those are basic facts. - posted on 04/20/2009
刚引了一小段,你还不知道人家要说什么就开始批判了。Psychospiritualists 并没有抱怨物质产品消费太多了,精神产品消费太少了。不是那样。对于物质消费太多的批评是因为那是多数人成长的一个障碍。在精神世界,我们要面对的问题不是消费,而是给予。
虽然读书,听音乐这些行为也属于“精神”领域,这些固然是一种消费。难道 Psychospiritualists 是在抱怨人们只知吃喝玩乐,不知读书?不是的。精神世界有一些规律是和物质世界不同的。例如,你有两块蛋糕,你送一块给别人,你就剩下一块。但是一份爱心,却可以送给很多人,而同时又让你得到很多人的爱心回赠。这很象说教,但我仅为了说明观点而提起。所谓精神营养,就是关心,关注,倾听。
st e dou wrote:
Those so-called psychospiritualists cannot see either of those two issues. They think that the problem is that most persons consume too many material things and too little non-material things. - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/20/2009
你硬把爱心之类的往经济学里扯,越扯越糊涂,你的读者越糊涂。经济学研究的,包
括psychic满足 和 在psychic 满足里不能交换的是相同的情况下最大化psychic的
满足里能交换的那一部分。爱心是psychic 满足里不能交换的那一部分。你自己不
清楚那经济学里到底是什么,到处弄些似乎有道理的“经济学”来合理化你那些
“新人类”的思想。好象爱心一扩大,人类的行动的那些天道就都颠覆了。但你连
那天道里有什么都不知道。本人批判的就是你这样的闪烁其辞的满脑子稀里糊涂的
anti-free-capitalism mentality 的。 - posted on 04/20/2009
那些满脑子稀里糊涂的anti-free-capitalism mentality 的看见当代资本主义生产
过程中的一些“callousness” (除了自由资本主义经济学也批判的那些对私有产权
的侵犯),就动了恻隐之心,好象在当前这样的情形下真有什么别的选择似的。问题
是在scarcity的现实下是没有别的选择的,别的选择带来的是物质的贫困。物质的
贫困带不来爱心的增加。那些狗屁的“经济学”“新理论”根本看不见那scarcity的
现实和那现实带来的别无选择。若追问那些狗屁“经济学家”,他们也不想要物质
的贫困。但那些狗屁“经济学家”的主张或隐含的主张带来的不是别的,恰恰是物
质的贫困。 - Re: ZT中国经济到了最危险的时刻!posted on 04/20/2009
那些满脑子稀里糊涂的anti-free-capitalism mentality 的说话下气不接上气、哆
哆嗦嗦地说不出几句完整的话,因为他们脑子里一团浆糊,根本就没有一个一步步
的推理过程。他们闪烁其辞地哆哆嗦嗦地说这说那,最后还是离不开他们自己否认
他们自己信的社会主义那一套。他们是瞎子而且不愿看见。他们说的话只有同样的
瞎子才当回事,然后互相握手互相祝贺 、说“好啊!你我所见相同”。见什么?瞎
子能见到什么?只见到他们想象的。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- ZILI
- #1 令胡冲
- #2 touche
- #3 July
- #4 touche
- #5 July
- #6 行人
- #7 令胡冲
- #8 July
- #9 June
- #10 令胡冲
- #11 touche
- #12 touche
- #13 st e-dou #280
- #14 老瓦
- #15 st e-dou #281
- #16 st e-dou #282
- #17 老瓦
- #18 st e-dou #283
- #19 st e-dou #283
- #20 CNDer
- #21 st e-dou #284
- #22 st e-dou #284
- #23 st e-dou #285
- #24 st e-dou #286
- #25 st e-dou #287
- #26 st e-dou #288
- #27 st e-dou #289
- #28 CNDer
- #29 st e dou
- #30 st e dou
- #31 st e dou
- #32 CNDer
- #33 st e dou
- #34 hbai
- #35 令胡冲
- #36 st e dou
- #37 st e dou
- #38 st e dou
- #39 st e dou
- #40 st e dou
- #41 st e dou
- #42 st e dou
- #43 st e dou
- #44 hbai
- #45 CNDer
- #46 st e dou
- #47 CNDer
- #48 st e dou
- #49 st e dou
- #50 hbai
- #51 st e dou
- #52 st e dou
- #53 st e dou
- #54 CNDer
- #55 CNDer
- #56 老瓦
- #57 st e dou
- #58 st e dou
- #59 st e dou
- #60 st e dou
- #61 st e dou
- #62 CNDer
- #63 st e dou
- #64 st e dou
- #65 st e dou
- #66 CNDer
- #67 CNDer
- #68 CNDer
- #69 st e dou
- #70 st e dou
- #71 st e dou
- #72 CNDer
- #73 st e dou
- #74 st e dou
- #75 st e dou
- #76 jiaojiao
- #77 CNDer
- #78 st e dou
- #79 CNDer
- #80 gz
- #81 st e dou
- #82 st e dou
- #83 st e dou
- #84 st e dou
- #85 CNDer
- #86 st e dou
- #87 st e dou
- #88 st e dou
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation