Why do we only talk about the economy at the problem level? And not just because Q&A is useless
What is Blackboard Economics?
Let's start with Kos. Ronald Coase was the winner of the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics, which is different from Mo Yan's prize, economics is also a bit scientific and falsifiable; There is no problem of falsification in literature, it is closely related to the feelings of life, and if you have not experienced 62 years, you will think that Mo Yan is lying a lot, since there are so many lies, it is a spy. In fact, the essence of literature is "lies", no matter which literary work it is.
So, is there a lie in economics? No, but it can be unreal.
We often say that practice tests the truth, but in fact it is not that simple, reform and opening up from 1978 to the present more than 50 years, may I ask, what truth has been tested? Who would dare to claim to represent the truth?
Blackboard economics is based on the assumption that I represent the truth.
However, this is exactly what Coase opposes.
Coase's main contribution to economics was mainly the development of the transaction cost theory and Coase's theorem. He assumes that the initial allocation of property rights does not affect the optimal allocation of resources in the case of zero transaction costs; This is actually a kind of blackboard economics that he himself opposes, because there is no such thing as zero transaction costs.
The so-called blackboard economics,
That is, to make formulas on the blackboard, and make a smooth linear extension from known data, so there are ten predictions that Ren Ze can open his mouth without moving; And the economy is a superdimensional variable, and there are countless unknown factors that are breaking down your smoothness; New energy vehicles are the direction, this is the logic of the ultimate perfection, but the essence of the economy is balance, in a specific time window, it is excessive, buying new energy stocks is likely to be a loss-making investment.
Is our policy orientation also influenced by blackboard economics? What is written on the blackboard is that the logic is perfect, and the actual process of the economy is not perfect at all, and even counterproductive.
Common prosperity is also the ultimate perfection of logic.
It's ideal, it's human, it's very similar; However, in practice, we expect it to be achieved through public ownership and a planned economy, which is also blackboard economics when there is no realistic version to support it; Because it is not that there is a summary of experience in reality, the formation of regular cognition, and there is not a single case in reality, so why do we firmly believe it? Because it is not originally a concept of economics, it is the pursuit of sociology. If you use the ultimate perfection of blackboard economics to determine the process of economic operation, you will immediately find that there is a contradiction between the outside and the outside. For example, some people propose to cut the feudal domain and the land of Juntian, but how to achieve it in reality is not very valid, because this is a violation of the constitution of plundering investors; When all the investors run out, this market is no longer a depression of capital, and the capital density is reduced, what will be the result? It will not need too much labor, the factories are closed, relocated, and the employment is gone, so what is the wealth?
So, blackboard economics sounds very good and logically justifies, but once you enter the real market, you will find that it is more than a thousand years away from you.
Any solution that has no case is blackboard economics.
Is there a case for a planned economy? There are cases of the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the peninsula, Cuba, etc., if we want to build a convincing system, we must look for supporting evidence from these cases, rather than saying that only public ownership is the economy for the people; I'm afraid it's not even blackboard economics, because you can't find the perfect logic. On the contrary, real cases tell us that all the planned economic modes that have appeared in the past have one thing in common, that is, hierarchies. Distribution is not anchored according to the amount of investment, it can be said that the unfair distribution under the capitalist system has been eliminated, or the imbalance is more economic; However, there is also another kind of distribution imbalance that cannot be overcome: an old cadre in Jiangxi has lived in a high-level cadre ward for seven years, is this a cure or a pension, and the worker's eldest brother, who is the leader of the proletariat, can live in it? What is the meaning of commonality?
Before the change, the vast majority of necessities had to be billed, so why not bills? If you don't supply with tickets, it becomes the final word of capital, one is that there is a shortage of goods and can't afford it, and the other is that money is not graded, and it is the same in anyone's hands, what you want to buy, what you want to buy, the ticket is not used, it is issued by the government, and different levels are not the same, there is no hierarchy, public distribution is not established, how to divide it, the factory director is treated the same as the second-level worker, who is still the factory director? Therefore, human nature dictates that there must always be individual interests in order to have collective glory; If you want the factory director to work hard, there must be a difference in power, there must be identity identification, as long as there is a hierarchy, it is impossible to achieve common prosperity, because there is no such case in history, it is still blackboard economics.
Is Blackboard economics necessarily a fallacy? Not necessarily.
But when it has not been tested in practice, it is best not to force it, such as Wu Xiaoping's theory of leaving the private economy five years ago, which is not wrong from the classical theory, the "Communist Manifesto" vows to eliminate private ownership and liberate all mankind; Can China's 1.4 billion people be used as a big testing ground and a test? Reality tells us that although there are a lot of problems with private enterprises, China's economy is really not good without it. The two major supports of taxation and employment have determined that with the efficiency of state-owned enterprises now, 56789 will not be able to replace the private economy in another 40 years, and the exit theory will become a blackboard economic nonsense, which sounds very cool, but it is really a downward pressure on the economy, and state-owned enterprises alone cannot define the trend of China's economy, and the relatively generous treatment of state-owned enterprises themselves will also be reduced; Without the support of the overall economy of private enterprises, the brilliance of state-owned enterprises will also lose their color. The whole country is still a game of chess, so the exit theory has become a blackboard economics through and through.
Some people say that economics is not a science, and it is true that as a social science is a natural science, a bullet flies, it must be flying. It is difficult for us to confirm what the direction is for the super-dimensional random phenomena of social science, such as the planned economy will usher in common prosperity, but now the most authentic Northern Peninsula provides a falsified case, it is too poor. Since it is a discipline whose principled conclusions can be falsified, it still needs to be included in the category of science.
The premise of science is empirically supported, philosophy does not need it.
Since we must have the support of experience and be able to falsify, we should step out of the blackboard and out of logic to perfection. If China's economy is to one day be far ahead, or even cleared, it must stay away from the blackboard, and do not force practice to serve theory and blackboard economics that has never been empirically proven.
Human life is very short, 40 years in a flick of a finger, we give up successful cases, to achieve the logic of the blackboard economy is finally perfect, that is to move the fate of 1.4 billion people to a huge era of experimental ground, may I ask, how many forty years do we have in our life?
Tsinghua faction's judgment on the situation: China's economy will face three major pressures in the next five years