張五常一族

前題錯就結論錯 //張五常一族常常吹捧自由貿易的好處 但觀乎現實世界,理想中的自由貿易真的存在嗎? // 吹捧自由貿易的好處 同有無"理想中的自由貿易" 有何關係? 什麼是"理想中的自由貿易" ? 理想中的X 與 現實 有無X 有什麼關係? //美國的強大要歸功於其貿易的自由還是其有強大武力為後盾的霸道呢? // 張五常應該唔係咁講掛? 國家強大與否 會唔會係 資本主義/共產主義 制度的問題? USSR/China 都有 強大武力， 不見得好強大吧?

非五常一族 每個制度總有其毛病, 資本主義戰勝了共產主義已毋用置疑, 正如中國經濟學芧于軾所講, 一個人為自己利益而工作, 比他故意為社會做好事對社會貢獻還大. 至於自由貿易Vs保護主義, 爭論已久, 自由貿易掛起「自由」旗幟, 甚為動聽, 但往往失卻公平, 大國憑著既有優勢, 自然無往以不利, 大國對著小國, 尤如大人同細路玩「自由搏擊」, 雖自由但不公平, 這正是反全球化的論點之一.

To: Eros /張五常一族常常吹捧自由貿易的好處/ Economists agree on the advantage of free trade with well-supported reasons. When you use the term "吹捧", you probably implied that free trade is not good. Would you pls explain the reasons behind your view?

美國的強大要歸功於... /美國的強大要歸功於其貿易的自由還是其有強大武力為後盾的霸道呢?/ A superpower has to be built on super economic power. In order to understand the rise of the US, it's useful to look at the institutional factors behind. In general, economic development is driven by 3 key factors: (1) increase in labour force and improvement in the quality of labour force; (2) capital accumulation; (3) technological improvement. As for US case (a) A capitalist, free-market regime helps promote efficient use of resources and is favourable to capital accumulation. (Versus a socialist, economic planning regime (e.g. former Soviet), which proved disastrous.) (b) An open society attracts talents from the rest of the world, contributing to a fast-growing work force despite a declining birth rate. (c) An open society also encourages creativity and innovations. Intellectual property rights are well-protected, encouraging R&D. All these are necessary conditions for productivity growth. (d) The second half of 1990s was a unique episode, during which the US enjoyed continued strong capital inflows from the rest of the world. Although this fueled the economic boom in late-1990s, this is a cyclical factor rather than an institutional factor.

邏輯初階 麻瓜:2003-02-12 13:22:20// 前題（原文）錯就結論錯// 「前提錯就結論錯」是錯的。邏輯上，大前提錯誤並不意味結論必錯，請看下面的例子： 大前提﹕所有美國人都是白人 (錯誤） 小前提﹕布殊總統是美國人 結論﹕所以布殊總統是白人 （正確） 很明顯，大前提錯誤但結論正確。這是邏輯初階，切記切記！

美國的強大要歸功於...(part 2) It’s true that the US uses its political and military power to protect the country’s interests (through its influence on the IMF, OPEC, WTO, etc). But it is important to note that the US has built a strong economic foundation first before it could exercise its influence on the others. After all, factors (a) to (c) listed above are most critical to the building of such a foundation. Strong political and military power did not create this foundation. Rather, such power is based on such foundation and is used to defend and expand the country’s economic and political interests - through shaping the rules that govern international trade and finance, sending troops to Iraq to “build” a pro-US regime, etc. Whether using its power in such a way is “right” or “fair” is a normative question (a question of value judgement), and it is certainly debatable.

Disclaimer I'm not a 崇拜張族者

//很明顯，大前提錯誤但結論正確。這是邏輯初階，切記切記！ // OOps! 係! 應該係前題推唔出結論， 是犯了不相干的謬誤吧。

礙眼 「前提」，不是「前題」

Free trade how free 事忙之故，無法仔細回應，只想提出數點: (1) 小弟非完全抹殺自由貿易的好處 (2) 在資本主義與共產主義之間還有其他選擇 (3) //A superpower has to be built on super economic power. // 未必盡然, 設想前蘇聯沒有美國為敵，她大可以強大武力進行掠奪,為其困頓經濟融資 情形有點像今天美國之於伊拉克

Not free trade, but unilateralism is the problem /小弟非完全抹殺自由貿易的好處/ Pls be specific. /在資本主義與共產主義之間還有其他選擇/ Would like to hear more on this from you. /未必盡然, 設想前蘇聯沒有美國為敵，她大可以強大武力進行掠奪,為其困頓經濟融資/ Would you pls raise real-life examples to dispute "A superpower has to be built on super economic power"? /情形有點像今天美國之於伊拉克/ The US must have a strong economic foundation first before it can afford to do what it is trying to do in Iraq. The Americans are prepared to spend at least US$50-60 bn on the war. Building a pro-US regime in Iraq will not help the US 為其困頓經濟融資. There must be a higher strategic agenda than controlling crude oil supply in Iraq.

Suggested reading George Stigliz (2002) "Globalization and its discontents" A good summary of the problems of today's globalisation trends,

superpower 前蘇聯便是superpower的現實例子,這該毋庸置疑吧. 她雖然最終崩潰了,但也不能因此否定她曾經是superpower.除非新亞老餅認為superpower必須千百年屹立不倒. 扯遠點說,其實美國今天也搖搖欲倒,唯有靠霸權主義養活資本主義,但養得多久?會做成多少塗炭的生靈? 我想,美國終會像大英帝國般衰落 問題是,資本主義會否如經濟學家熊彼得所說 (希望沒記錯)因過度發展而自行崩潰?

False dichotomy The debate on whther pure communism or pure capitalism is better is destined to be futile. No one single country is on these extremes. Every countries belong to the two set to a certain degree. The relevant questions are on the effects of property rights structure on living standard. An empirical question of this kind have no a priori answer to be deduced.

根本沒有存在過 試舉實例 美國有社會福利制, 非純資本主義也 香港在97以前有行業壟斷 (如租務管制, 食米入口不自由, 食用豬入口不自由), 亦非純自由貿易也 中國也建設"中國特色的社會主義" 其實真正純資本主義, 純社會主義, 純共產主義有存在過嗎?

純 「純」當然從未有過 (特醇濾咀的醇例外) 我相信也沒有人那麼傻要論証「純」,等如論証全稱命題 問題的關鍵是,張族經常以「純」或「越純越好」來批評及影響別人和時政. 究竟是否「越純越好」,正是最值得商榷之處.

試問 武力是交易成本之一種，還是引致有交易成本？　請張老師之徒指教．．．

武力成本 我非張徒,也只懂econ皮毛 但想釐清:武力是交易成本的意思,是否指人命,軍費等等? 武力引致有交易成本,又相對甚麼交易來說?

請！ 請讀張老師的＜＜經濟解釋＞＞　三卷．　尤以卷三　＜＜制度的選擇＞＞　可解你的問題． 按：交易成本即交易費用．

請請 可否把其重點扼要說出,當是導讀呢?

violence every contract or delinesation of property rights are backed up by violence. Else, nobody would respect your poession of rights. See Umbeck's 'might makes rights'

尋人 張五常究竟身處何方? 他會不會返美受審? 他曾經那麼熱愛美國啊！

答誰 據說張五常已「返」了大陸， 不知道用「潛逃」是否適合。