何謂新古典經濟學之限制？新經濟理論的修正為何？
盡管新古典經濟學是極度地使用統計分析，但卻為提供一個適當的概念架構去分析經濟的變動和全球經濟的原動力；舉例而言，它不能解釋在口味上的變動和技術變動等外生的因素。
研究途徑的三個缺陷：1.對于經濟事務而言，缺乏一個時間上的范圍以及一個空間上的范圍，同時假設經濟活動是發生在一個缺乏歷史及地理的抽象世界之中。2.新古典經濟學對技術和技術的變動之來源，給予了錯誤的關注。3.新古典經濟學也忽略了經濟制度的重要性和其它制度的重要性，對于政府和其他制度的角色卻不予理會。
新成長理論，新經濟地理學，以及新貿易理論挑戰了新古典學派的一些基本假設，例如完全競爭、固定規模報酬、充分的資訊等。這些新的理論強調寡占競爭、規模經濟、技術的創新，同時它們也納入歷史的進程、制度、以及空間的關系。新理論所描述的世界，是個在各國經濟體制中同時存在分歧和整合的世界，對于那些經濟體的經濟事務，政府是可以也確實扮演一個重要的角色，同時技術的創新也是一個重要的特征。
新古典經濟學解釋經濟事務時，并未考慮到歷史和地理，因此其對於橫跨時空的經濟體運作之理解，在應用性上是有限制的。新古典學派的理論通常忽略了因為經濟成長所產生的不可避免的那些經濟的變動、政治的變動、及其它社會結構的變動。
新古典學派的限制。1.時空限制。a.未能提出經濟體的歷史。b. 未對經濟體進展的本質提出一個解釋。c.認為只要每一個經濟體是依據比較利益法則行為時，經濟活動的地域分佈并無太大的重要性。d.國際分工的地理分佈和長期經濟活動在空間上的組建之變動。
2.技術創新。a.因為技術的進展被認為是外生於經濟體系的，所以經濟學家對此并未發展有完全的理解。b.因為經濟學家將技術視為每個人皆能公平取得的一個公共財，故他們并未適當地認知到技術獨占的重要性。c.因為生產函數理論假設經濟行動者對於可利用的技術是有完整的或特定的知識，而且是每個行動者皆可取得的，故經濟學家通常無法將不確定性整合入其著作中。3.由于他們對于市場的重視，導致許多人，忽略了組織的重要性。制度被解釋為理性個體企欲最大化其利益而產生的，以新古典為例，一般都會忽略在經濟的制度及其他的制度之起源中偶然的事件
新理論把空間上的范圍和時間上的范圍二者引介進入經濟學的分析之中，將技術的創新置為他們分析的重心，同時對於像是各國政府和公司這些制度，派定其為經濟體中的一個重要角色。
新古典經濟學對於行為的根本假設是，社會是由理性個體所組成，而這些理性個體的首要目的，就是去極大化他們的利益，而新理論相對于傳統新古典經濟學的部分，就是他們1.主張有不完全競爭市場或獨占市場.2.強調技術創新的重要性。3.運用歷史或路徑依賴，作為一個解釋上的變項。
制度/規模經濟/不完全競爭
新理論已對產業組織領域之研究上的發展產生強烈的影響。此類的研究強調產業領域的組成及在整個經濟體中，規模經濟和不完全競爭的重要性，此已挑戰了所有的經濟過程都是以固定報酬及完全競爭為特色之假設。
技術創新
新理論強烈地強調技術創新對於經濟成長、經濟活動于空間上的分布，及國際間競爭的重要性。技術創新已成為先進國家的經濟成長之首要決定性因素。
歷史與地理
對於新古典經濟學家而言，經濟體，是未占有時間和空間的，同時以均衡一詞，來界定新古典學派的經濟體和市場均衡，實在一個超越時空的狀態下同時被加以解釋的。新古典經濟學家假設國家型的經濟體，不是別的，僅僅就是空間中的一個沒有空間度量的點，同時國際經濟僅是一群相互連結的點。新理論主張歷史和地理，對於經濟體本質及運作的定義，是重要的。即過去的經濟情況，會大大的影響經濟的現況，同時經濟活動是有一個明確的空間和層級的結構。
內生成長理論
對新古典成長理論有一個的批判，是關注與該理論對于技術的處理。新古典成長理論認為技術的進展是外生於經濟成長的，而且技術是被體現于資本投資之中的，此外，技術被認為是一公共財，為世界各地每一家公司皆可獲取的公共財。再者，技術（不像資本或勞動那樣），是不能被直接觀察或量化的。對于總要素生產力之貢獻是後於其它兩個要素的，。另一批判是，新古典忽略了人力資本和知識技能。積極投資的外部性，就自然科學的投資及人力資本的投資，對于經濟成長的貢獻，能較新古典理論所建議的更多一些。然而投資除了會提升該公司的生產力外，於技術上的外溢及其它方面的外溢，亦可有利于國內的其它公司，甚或有利于整個經濟體。
新理論將技術進展和知識進步，納入成長模型之中視為是內生要素；新成長理論是假設知識、技術、技術知識是有別于資本及勞動的另一項獨立的生產要素；新理論假設知識及技術是源自審慎的決策，同時技術的進步，大部分是市場導向的。資本和知識之投資，是可以刺激且強化彼此在累積的因果關系中有一個良性循環。
此外，新古典的成長理論是立即於固定規模報酬之假設，而新經濟是立基于規模經濟的存在之上。因此，新古典理論因為報酬遞減而對于長期成長率之預測，認為是將會下降的，但是新理論卻假定報酬遞增的可能性，而認為成長率不必然是下降的。
新古典理論認為儲蓄率對長期經濟成長率，僅有些許的影響，且將技術視為是外生的，但是內生成長理論卻提出政府的政策，透過推動國內儲蓄率及投資率的提高以及增加對於研究發展的支持，是導致一個持續性的高經濟成長率。
新成長理論和新古典經濟學的完全競爭市場之基本假設是相對的，也就是相對於公司是為價格接收者的信念，認為價格是由市場所決定的，所以公司不能輕易的改變他們所需付出的價格。新成長理論卻假設，因為報酬遞增是可能的，所增加的產出可以降低單位成本，同時公司亦可因此增加利潤，意即公司是一個價格設定者。
新理論將人力資本強調為是經濟成長的關鍵，以削弱趨同理論。根據新理論，富者將越富，貧者——除非他們會投資於人力資源之上——將會持續落后於富者之后，國際經濟將繼續以國家質檢高度的不平等作為其特色。新成長理論暗語各國經濟將是不對稱成長的，而非他們會變成趨同的。
新經濟地理學
地區性的經濟群聚及其存續，通常是無法用新古典學派所強調的要素秉賦來加以解釋的。盡管比較利益原則主張一個產業選擇其落腳處，主要是由要素稟賦決定，但是要素稟賦卻不適合也不能解釋許多重要產業因何選擇其落腳處。新經濟地理學通常認為要以非經濟要素、路徑依賴、機會及積累的過程等，來說明制造業的緣起及聚集，以及在特定的區位的其它經濟活動。
根據新經濟地理學，在意特定地區中經濟活動的原始落腳處及聚集，通常僅是取決於機會或是歷史的偶然，然而，一旦一個產業或經濟活動建立之后，積累的力量及回饋的機制，於一段延續期間之內，該地區將可持續的產生經濟活動的聚集。路徑依賴暗指經濟的領域——生產技術、經濟制度、及經濟活動之地理分佈——大部分是許多次要的隨機發展之結果。而傳統的經濟學是假設，有多少因就會有多少果，亦即，二者之間是有線性關系的。路徑依賴的分析指出，小的，甚至非常小的因，可能會引起不成比例的大果。
戰略性貿易理論
STT挑戰了經濟學以前所明確支持的自由貿易之理論基礎。事實上，戰略性貿易理論的發展，是因為不滿與傳統貿易理論越來越不能對毛及類型進行解釋之刺激，和關注美國貿易問題的持續增加。
STT提供了一個理論基礎予國家去使用保護主義式手段、補貼特定產業、以及其它形式的產業政策，以令其國內公司在國內市場及世界市場上，具有一個決定性的優勢。
STT的核心觀念是一些公司及政府可以在不完全競爭的全球市場上采取戰略性的行為，因此去促進一個國家的貿易平衡和國家福利。這既定著有一些市場是以不完全競爭或寡占競爭作為特色的。
STT與傳統貿易理論相對的地方，是其假設一些特定的經濟部門，相較整個經濟體中的其他領域，是更為重要的，同時令政府有理由去支持該特定經濟部門。
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
2012中的中國形象
看這個電影之前，我一點都不了解2012的相關背景。世界末日，瑪雅預言從來都沒聽說過。也不知道電影里會出現這么多跟中國相關的情節。看到以后，才發現里面關于中國的部分，很值得進行思考。
我會特別關注好萊塢電影對于中國在世界上所扮演角色的詮釋。2012里最能讓不少中國人YY的是諾亞方舟及其相關的水壩工程都是在中國建設的。電影里美國政府官員也有這樣一句話，多虧了中國強大的制造業，才可能在這么短的時間內建造出來。我相信這是大多數西方人的想法，強大的制造業已經成為中國新的名片。在現實世界里與之相對應的，是西方國家市場被made in China的產品所占據。平日里不斷抱怨國內市場被大量廉價的中國制造的產品所沖垮，而在世界末日來臨之際，卻要靠中國來拯救。而且，美國政府官員平日里總嚷嚷著要中國政府加薪保障勞工權益，真正災難到來之際，那位官員的表現又如何？制造諾亞方舟的工人竟然不能上船，這真是對西方國家的一個強烈的諷刺。
西方人真的覺醒了嗎？在他們的眼中中國真的是救世主嗎？答案當然不是。電影里，拯救世界的仍然是美國人，中國只不過是打打下手。拯救人類的關鍵人物，是美國的一位黑人科學家。中國甚至連參與決策的角色都沒撈到，美國總統第一時間告知的仍然是西方國家占主流的G8會議。這難道不令人懷疑嗎？G8會議大部分的議題是經濟議題，真正主管全球安全事務的是聯合國安理會，中國作為安理會常任理事國竟然沒有在第一時間知曉信息。這真正彰顯出美國人對中國包括俄羅斯人的不信任。
紅五星和綠軍衣是電影里最多出現的有關中國的視覺符號。“黨和政府一定會幫助大家。”這句話卻是一位穿著綠軍裝的軍人所說。我很佩服電影導演，能夠把中國黨政軍一體的情況這么傳神的表現出來。電影里軍人的強權形象一覽無遺，從拉走藏人做勞工，到舉槍威脅男主角一家和俄羅斯富翁，處處體現的是強硬和不近人情。要不是惦記著中國的票房市場，我真的覺得電影導演在塑造中國形象上可能會更為負面。
與之相對比的是，藏人形象在電影里卻是十分高尚。2012這部電影，似乎時時刻刻都在提醒著觀眾，中國和西藏是兩層皮，不一樣的。藏人的宗教色彩和綠軍裝的軍人格格不入，藏人友善對待男主角一家和中國軍人端槍恐嚇的對比，潛移默化地向觀眾灌輸西藏不屬于中國的觀點。
硬實力提升了，軟實力也要大大加強。要改變世界對中國的刻板印象，政府還有許多亟需改善之處。什么時候好萊塢電影里對中國當代（不是古代）主流價值觀進行推崇，那才是真正中國強大的時刻。
我會特別關注好萊塢電影對于中國在世界上所扮演角色的詮釋。2012里最能讓不少中國人YY的是諾亞方舟及其相關的水壩工程都是在中國建設的。電影里美國政府官員也有這樣一句話，多虧了中國強大的制造業，才可能在這么短的時間內建造出來。我相信這是大多數西方人的想法，強大的制造業已經成為中國新的名片。在現實世界里與之相對應的，是西方國家市場被made in China的產品所占據。平日里不斷抱怨國內市場被大量廉價的中國制造的產品所沖垮，而在世界末日來臨之際，卻要靠中國來拯救。而且，美國政府官員平日里總嚷嚷著要中國政府加薪保障勞工權益，真正災難到來之際，那位官員的表現又如何？制造諾亞方舟的工人竟然不能上船，這真是對西方國家的一個強烈的諷刺。
西方人真的覺醒了嗎？在他們的眼中中國真的是救世主嗎？答案當然不是。電影里，拯救世界的仍然是美國人，中國只不過是打打下手。拯救人類的關鍵人物，是美國的一位黑人科學家。中國甚至連參與決策的角色都沒撈到，美國總統第一時間告知的仍然是西方國家占主流的G8會議。這難道不令人懷疑嗎？G8會議大部分的議題是經濟議題，真正主管全球安全事務的是聯合國安理會，中國作為安理會常任理事國竟然沒有在第一時間知曉信息。這真正彰顯出美國人對中國包括俄羅斯人的不信任。
紅五星和綠軍衣是電影里最多出現的有關中國的視覺符號。“黨和政府一定會幫助大家。”這句話卻是一位穿著綠軍裝的軍人所說。我很佩服電影導演，能夠把中國黨政軍一體的情況這么傳神的表現出來。電影里軍人的強權形象一覽無遺，從拉走藏人做勞工，到舉槍威脅男主角一家和俄羅斯富翁，處處體現的是強硬和不近人情。要不是惦記著中國的票房市場，我真的覺得電影導演在塑造中國形象上可能會更為負面。
與之相對比的是，藏人形象在電影里卻是十分高尚。2012這部電影，似乎時時刻刻都在提醒著觀眾，中國和西藏是兩層皮，不一樣的。藏人的宗教色彩和綠軍裝的軍人格格不入，藏人友善對待男主角一家和中國軍人端槍恐嚇的對比，潛移默化地向觀眾灌輸西藏不屬于中國的觀點。
硬實力提升了，軟實力也要大大加強。要改變世界對中國的刻板印象，政府還有許多亟需改善之處。什么時候好萊塢電影里對中國當代（不是古代）主流價值觀進行推崇，那才是真正中國強大的時刻。
Sunday, November 8, 2009
journal 11.6
I think most people will admit that college life is wonderful. As a result of which, I hear this kind of talking a lot during my past two year in college.
"I can't imagine how I am going to face up to the difficulties when I graduate."
"Me too! I like my college life so much and I wish I can be in college forever!"
Then they will sigh at each other and looked very worried. It seems that this is the end of the world to these people.
Today when I pass through fountain I find that the graduating students are taking their graduation photographs together. Most of them are very happy except two girls who are hugging each other and weeping. Their behavior makes their classmates uncomfortable and embarrassing.
Now I am in my junior year. In no time, I am gonna face the issue myself. I definitely will miss my college life. The people you know in college, the room where you have classes, the food served in the canteen, the activities you attend, the indescribable KTV nights...etc. Those beautiful memories will always take a place in my heart but we should move on.
Every ending is a new beginning. The life will step into a new stage. Of course there are challenges waiting for us in the future, but there are also a lot highlights we are going to create. Those girls are really borrowing trouble.
journal 11.5
Some media scholars say that Internet makes people shallow. I turned up my nose at this opinion, because I think Internet is just another form of media and the content doesn't change at all. However, what I saw today makes me rethink this issue.
A few days ago, a famous Chinese scientist passed away. He had made great contribution to the space engineering of China. Today is his farewell ceremony. Renren.com, which is very similar to Facebook.com and enjoys great popularity among students in the mainland of China, has added a webpage on its website. The users can post some words that they want to say on the page. Up to now , there are more than 200 thousand messages on that page.
Here comes the point. Is this act enough to memory the scientist? Students log on to Renren.com and find there is a website. They just incidentally input some characters and this is it. They might feel that I did something and I was aware of that. After doing that, they just do what they want to do with a quiet conscience.
I think this is kind of pathetic. Is the great scientist only worth some keyboard percussions? The design of the memory webpage just simplified the memoriam activity. It became more entertaining and less serious. We lost the solemn and respectful sense and the whole procession is just like a mere formality.
Who should be responsible for this? The webmaster or the users? Neither of them is false. I think it's the Internet should be blamed. Just like I said at the beginning, Internet makes people shallow. The form of Internet decides what people would do in the Internet. McLuhan had said the medium is the message. It seems that his theory was proved once again.
A few days ago, a famous Chinese scientist passed away. He had made great contribution to the space engineering of China. Today is his farewell ceremony. Renren.com, which is very similar to Facebook.com and enjoys great popularity among students in the mainland of China, has added a webpage on its website. The users can post some words that they want to say on the page. Up to now , there are more than 200 thousand messages on that page.
Here comes the point. Is this act enough to memory the scientist? Students log on to Renren.com and find there is a website. They just incidentally input some characters and this is it. They might feel that I did something and I was aware of that. After doing that, they just do what they want to do with a quiet conscience.
I think this is kind of pathetic. Is the great scientist only worth some keyboard percussions? The design of the memory webpage just simplified the memoriam activity. It became more entertaining and less serious. We lost the solemn and respectful sense and the whole procession is just like a mere formality.
Who should be responsible for this? The webmaster or the users? Neither of them is false. I think it's the Internet should be blamed. Just like I said at the beginning, Internet makes people shallow. The form of Internet decides what people would do in the Internet. McLuhan had said the medium is the message. It seems that his theory was proved once again.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
How unwritten rules circumscribe our lives
On the train people sit face to face. Some people feel that it is an awkward situation. If you look forward, you will see the other passenger's face.That behavior will make the other passenger uncomfortable. Otherwise, you have to pretend to look at the ground or out of the train window. I believe most people would take the second measure except young kids who will directly look at you with their innocent eyes.
However, this is not a rule you can find in the law book. No one is going to be in jail if he insists of doing this. It seems that there is a invisible angle floating over you head telling you that you'd better not do this. To be more specific, the unwritten rules play an important part in our lives. In many occasions, the invisible angle over your head will instruct you.
Every time I go to the library I am interested about how the student choose their seats. A guy picks up a book which he wants to read and he looks around to find a desk. If there is another empty table, he would never choose a nearer desk where there is already a person. Even though the desk could accommodate 4 or 6 people. If there is no empty desk at all, he definitely will choose to sit diagonally but not face to face. This occasion occurs to everyone. It seems that there is a very clear principle(actually there isn't) that when people face with the choice of where to sit. The principle is very clear—stay away from the other guy as far as possible.
The invisible angle will come out to remind you when you see the old man get on the bus. After a long day's work, you are tired and exhausted. However, the invisible angle just doesn't want to make you feel well if you let the old stand by you. Here comes the same question, you won't be suited if you don't offer your seats. Why does everybody still invite the old to be seated?
The reason is that we all share the same values.Most people in the society agree that we should follow some rules. Some of them are incorporated into legislation while others are not, but they still affect our lives a lot. Sometimes they even are stronger than the written ones. We can't pretend they do not exist.
However, this is not a rule you can find in the law book. No one is going to be in jail if he insists of doing this. It seems that there is a invisible angle floating over you head telling you that you'd better not do this. To be more specific, the unwritten rules play an important part in our lives. In many occasions, the invisible angle over your head will instruct you.
Every time I go to the library I am interested about how the student choose their seats. A guy picks up a book which he wants to read and he looks around to find a desk. If there is another empty table, he would never choose a nearer desk where there is already a person. Even though the desk could accommodate 4 or 6 people. If there is no empty desk at all, he definitely will choose to sit diagonally but not face to face. This occasion occurs to everyone. It seems that there is a very clear principle(actually there isn't) that when people face with the choice of where to sit. The principle is very clear—stay away from the other guy as far as possible.
The invisible angle will come out to remind you when you see the old man get on the bus. After a long day's work, you are tired and exhausted. However, the invisible angle just doesn't want to make you feel well if you let the old stand by you. Here comes the same question, you won't be suited if you don't offer your seats. Why does everybody still invite the old to be seated?
The reason is that we all share the same values.Most people in the society agree that we should follow some rules. Some of them are incorporated into legislation while others are not, but they still affect our lives a lot. Sometimes they even are stronger than the written ones. We can't pretend they do not exist.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Journal 11.4
I don't have any religious belief, even though I think some principles of the Buddhism or Catholicism are very meaningful. The reason is that I already know the supernatural beings don't exist. Why do the adherents of Jesus keep telling me that God is always there? Isn't that statement ridiculous? I am a rational man and if I believe what they said then I am totally an idiot.
The lecture I attended toady definitely changed something in my mind. The topic of this lecture was about the meaning of life. The lecturer was the famous cardinal bishop Shan Kuo-Hsi who got cancer in 2006. Most time of the lecture, he was telling several instructive stories which had affected his life, but what really shocked me was this sentence:God is nothing but love.
God is love. This explanation suddenly made me feel refreshed. I can't stand an imaginary man calling himself dominating all the creatures but I could accept love being the God, because everyone in the world needs love and love can make the world better. I don't know whether this explanation about God is officially admitted by the Roman Church, but it's more convincible.
The catholics I saw are all kind and nice. They care about other people and they would like to help those in trouble. However, they dreamed of seeing the Pope. I have seen some crazy followers dying to kiss the feet of Pope. I don't know what other people would think, but I believe this is not right and this could lead to a disaster.
One friend of mine had experienced this embarrassment a few days ago. She went to a temple and happened to meet a famous religious leader. What surprised her was everyone but her knelt down. My friend knew the Buddhist leader was famous and respectable but the leader didn't deserve to be knelt. Finally she compromised since she didn't want to be considered as alienated by her fellows.
Actually all I want to say is I wish there is more rationality in the religion. Maybe I am too strict but I do believe only by being more rational religion can exist in the future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
