Hello netizens watching the video, I am Meishan swordsman Chen Ping. Know each other and know yourself, and run the world. Now I'm going to introduce you to a very simple way to identify different schools of economics and where the basis of its methodology is.
As I said earlier, where is the most important progress of the scientific revolution, changing one's frame of reference when studying problems?
Asking different questions in each era would completely change the frame of reference for his observations, as well as changing the way they approached many of the problems of reality.
So what am I going to criticize western economics today, they are still in the time of Ptolemaic, they are still geocentric theory, and their variable has only one variable, what is this variable? That is, the price panacea of Western economics has only one variable, price.
Identify frames of reference for different theories
Therefore, the mission of economists proposed by Zhang Weiying in his recent speech is to defend the market, and the theory of economics is to have a correct and good market economy theory, so what about my answer?
Zhang Weiying said about the market for half a day, what market he talked about, he did not say that this market is the price, or in his popular words, it is money, but Zhang Weiying no longer understands the theory of money, why? Because the government of the Western countries is now authoritarian, what is the most hegemonic institution that dominates the market? It's the Bank of England, it's the Federal Reserve. At this point, you know what Zhang Weiying's methodological frame of reference is.
In fact, the geocentric theory, and who is the basis for this geocentric? Of course, it is not the earliest market economy Babylon, that is, the current Market in Iraq, nor the market of the Chinese Shang Dynasty or the Zhou Dynasty, but the market of when? It is the originator of colonialism that Zhang Weiying never forgot, and the idealism of Britain in the golden age of the British Empire has nothing to do with the reality of Britain. So he talked about the frame of reference, the correct market theory he wanted to defend, to put it bluntly, the British Empire at the height of colonialism.
Then I think the best thing I can do now among Chinese economists at home and abroad should be Xu Chenggang. Well, I said that in the mainstream economic journals in the West and in the mainstream economic journals in China, you can publish blockbuster articles and not count, and you can also win the grand prize. I certainly don't have such an honor.
Xu Chenggang recently recalled Kornai's soft constraint theory propositions, and his recent lecture at the Institute of New Thinking Economics at Oxford University, how to break the mystery of China's economy, and the theory he proposed was also lectured in Beijing, called the authoritarian system of decentralized competition. His authoritarian name is authoritarian, which echoes Kornai's positioning of the Chinese and Russian economies, arguing that the greatest threat to the Western liberal economy is the authoritarian system of China and Russia. In this regard, Xu Chenggang has vigorously advocated in China and the United Kingdom. But Xu Chenggang is very interesting, who is his frame of reference? Unlike Zhang Weiying, because he already knew that the British Empire was in decline, his reference frame was the per capita GDP of the United States at the same time as China. He calculates China's per capita GDP from 1950 to the latest 2010 as a proportion; the United States is the highest peak of hegemony after World War II, and China is the lowest point of the economy after the War of Resistance Against Japan and the Civil War.
What achievements in the past 10 years, Xu Chenggang's explanation is very simple, that is, China's constitutional amendment recognizes private property rights, so Xu Chenggang believes that the only driving force for China's great achievements in reform and opening up is the implementation of private ownership, and the current private ownership is not complete enough. But he didn't mention his teacher's Eastern Europe at all, and then the United States, and latin America, and all other countries, either more radical shock therapy than China, that is, private ownership, or never had public ownership, why did their economic performance far inferior to China's? He did not answer this question, so our readers can go to the Internet or video to tune it up and see what Zhang Weiying's argument is, what Xu Chenggang's argument is.
The school of thought does not argue about heroes based on ideological labels
In fact, I should also recommend to you, one of the actual founders of the American Economic Association, Yang Xiaokai, he and I are studying the same problem, on Adam Smith's division of labor, but the research direction of the two of us is completely opposite, he believes in British constitutionalism, so he believes that British constitutionalism is the frame of reference for his observation, so all countries in the world should evolve to British constitutionalism, what is the driving force? The driving force is the Coase theory of transaction costs that he believes in, thinking that in the process of economic development, transaction costs are reduced, and they are the driving force for institutional evolution, so the world should eventually converge with the British constitutionalism. This conclusion is the same as Zhang Weiying's conclusion today, but the methodology is different, because Yang Xiaokai is very serious about making mathematical models.
But my observation is exactly the opposite of Yang Xiaokai's, because the later North was also a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and initially thought that the United States was more advanced than Spanish colonialism, that the transaction costs of the United States were lower than those of Spain, and finally studied the changes in the United States itself from the 1870s to the 1970s, and found that the transaction costs of the United States increased from 25% to 50%, which is completely opposite to the theory of transaction costs, and is consistent with my speculations. So at this point, Yang Xiaokai's theory of the evolution of the division of labor is convergent, balanced, and convergent, and my theory of evolution is the same as Schumpeter, open, divergent, and diversified.
So in this regard, I would like to remind you that when you look at the debates of different schools, do not be confused by their labels of left and right ideologies, but look at who the world is looking at as a frame of reference.
I'm looking forward to seeing the "master trick"
So I would like to recommend a few Chinese economists. Although some people I argue with them openly, they are all accomplished and serious economists. It is not just to exaggerate, at this point, being able to openly argue on the academic front is beneficial to improving the level of understanding of mainstream Economics in China, as well as the popularity of the public, and the impact on the world.
Lin Yifu's new structural economics, which we are all very familiar with, is very serious about summarizing the experience of the Chinese model, but the way he summarizes it is in the framework of neoclassical economics, lacking innovative and entrepreneurial factors. Therefore, the dialogue on industrial policy between Lin Yifu and Zhang Weiying held at the National Development Institute of Peking University is actually not right, which is equivalent to a chicken and duck dialogue. At this point, I would like to recommend Wen Tiejun's new countryside and the study of 10 crises, and I think it is possible to talk to Teacher Lin Yifu. And this time, the theory of the rise and fall of great powers put forward by Teacher Zhou Wen is to go to the Perspective of China in the Center of the West, which is exactly the right way to dialogue with Xu Chenggang Zhang Weiying, and can also make up for the shortcomings of Teacher Lin Yifu. Of course, I also highly recommend Shi Zhengfu, who put forward the theory of extraordinary growth, which actually really promoted Keynesian economics. Zhang Weiying mistakenly regarded Keynesian economics as equilibrium theory, he was wrong, Keynes was non-equilibrium theory, and classical economics was equilibrium theory. China today must have the level of the dialogue between Keynes and Hayek, and I think everyone should listen to the dialogue between Shi Zhengfu and Lin Yifu and Wen Tiejun, so that they can have a similar style, but Zhang Weiying and Xu Chenggang still have to make up a little history course.
Well, know each other and know yourself, and sweep the world. I hope that China's leading cadres and economists at all levels, as well as young students, will open their eyes and re-understand and participate in the world and China's hundred schools of thought. The central question is one, when you choose your methodology, which school, which country's experience and perspective are your frame of reference, rather than unilaterally taking sides.
Source | Observer Network